//
you're reading...
legal issues

“The only contention raised by opposite party No.1 in the counter and the evidence affidavit is that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents justifying his claim. We can not appreciate such a contention as nobody making a claim would remain silent without sending the copies of the documents justifying the claim arising out of the accident. In fact exhibit B10 relied on by the opposite parties 1 and 2 makes it clear that there was the claim by the complainant as early as on 7-12-2006. It is significant to note that opposite party No.1 himself filed exhibit B10. When the complainant made the claim, he would have definitely enclosed the necessary documents. Exhibit B10 discloses that along with the letter dated 7-12-2006 the complainant had also enclosed copy of the FIR, copy of the RC, copy of RTA permit, claim form, given by the opposite party No.3, and also the driver’s license. So opposite party No.1 cannot be permitted to say that the complainant had not enclosed the necessary documents.”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

English: Hight court of the state of Andhra pr...

Image via Wikipedia

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 3657 OF 2011

(Against the order dated 28.07.2011 in FA No.611/2011 & FA No.1196/2009 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh)

National Insurance Company Ltd.

D.O.-I, P.B. No.236, Jhaveri Mansion,

Bank Street, Hyderabad                                                                                    ……….Petitioner

Versus

 

1. Mohd. Ishaq, S/o M.A. Hafiz,

R/o. 9-4-77/A/149,

A1- Hasnath Colony,

Tolichowki, Hyderabad

 

2. NIC Magma Insurance & Finance Coverage

@ Magma Leasing Ltd.,

6-3-1191, Brij Tarang, 2nd Floor,

Flat No.E, Greenlands,

Hyderabad.

 

3. Orange Auto (P) Ltd.,

Service Centre at Plot No.B45 and 46

Near Andhra BankSanathnagar,

Hyderabad                                                                                                   ………Respondents

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 3658 OF 2011

(Against the order dated 28.07.2011 in FA No.611/2011 & FA No.1196/2009 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh)

National Insurance Company Ltd.

D.O.-I, P.B. No.236, Jhaveri Mansion,

Bank Street, Hyderabad                                                                                     ……….Petitioner

Versus

 

1. Mohd. Ishaq, S/o M.A. Hafiz,

R/o. 9-4-77/A/149,

A1- Hasnath Colony,

Tolichowki, Hyderabad

 

2. NIC Magma Insurance & Finance Coverage

@ Magma Leasing Ltd.,

6-3-1191, Brij Tarang, 2nd Floor,

Flat No.E, Greenlands,

Hyderabad.

 

3. Orange Auto (P) Ltd.,

Service Centre at Plot No.B45 and 46

Near Andhra Bank, Sanathnagar,

Hyderabad                                                                                            ………Respondents

 

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,

                                    PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner         :   Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON:   28-02-2012    

 

ORDER

 

PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

The two revision petitions here are both filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., which was OP-1 in the complaint filed before the District Forum-I Hyderabad, by the first respondent here, Mohd. Ishaq.  The order of the District Forum in CC No.872 of 2008 was challenged before the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in two separate appeals, by the Complainant, Mohd. Ishaq and OP-1, National Insurance Company Limited.  The impugned order is a common order passed in the two appeals, which have been disposed of by the State Commission in the following terms:-

“In the result the appeal filed by the complainant F.A. 611/2010 is allowed directing the insurance company to pay Rs.3,75,155/- with costs of Rs.3,000/-.  The insurance company is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., if it fails to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realization.  Consequently the appeal preferred by the insurance company F.A. 1196/2009 is dismissed.  No costs.”

 

2.      The facts of the case relate to an insurance claim for a vehicle under a policy taken by the Complainant.  During the period of operation of the policy, the vehicle had met with an accident.  The claim of the Complainant under the policy for the repair costs, remained unsettle and hence, the consumer complaint.

 

3.      Per contra, the case of the revision petitioner/OP-1 before the District Forum was that it is mandatory on the part of the owner to furnish the particulars of the accident together with all documents like the registration certificate, drivinglicence etc. and the repair bills.  Immediately after receiving the claim of the Complainant, the insurance company had appointed a Surveyor to conduct a spot survey and submit his report.  The Surveyor in his report categorically stated that inspite of his personal requests and several reminders the Complainant had failed to submit the above mentioned documents for verification.  In the absence of those documents, it is very difficult to know the correct facts and therefore, the OP had not been able to finalize the claim.   Thus, according to the averment in the written response of OP-1 before the District Forum, final decision could not be taken due to non-cooperation of the Complainant.

 

4.      On this explanation of the Insurance Company for non-settlement of the claim, the District Forum has made the following observation:-

“The only contention raised by opposite party No.1 in the counter and the evidence affidavit is that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents justifying his claim.  We can notappreciate such a contention as nobody making a claim would remain silent without sending the copies of the documents justifying the claim arising out of the accident.  In fact exhibit B10 relied on by the opposite parties 1 and 2 makes it clear that there was the claim by the complainant as early as on 7-12-2006.  It is significant to note that opposite party No.1 himself filed exhibit B10. When the complainant made the claim, he would have definitely enclosed the necessary documents.  Exhibit B10  discloses  that  along  with  the  letter dated 7-12-2006 the complainant had also enclosed copy of the FIR, copy of the RC, copy of RTA permit, claim form, given by the opposite party No.3, and also the driver’s license.  So opposite party No.1 cannot be permitted to say that the complainant had not enclosed the necessary documents.”

 

 

5.      Further, both fora below have observed that the OP/Insurance Company relied on the report of the Surveyor according to which the requisite documents were not furnished by the Complainant inspite of several reminders being addressed to him to furnish the same.   Yet, the Insurance Company did not file the affidavit evidence of the Surveyor to substantiate this point.  In the absence of the same, no reliance has been placed by the fora below on  the  report of the surveyor.

 

6.     We have perused the records and heard Mr. Kishore Rawat, for the revision petitioner, National Insurance Co. Learned counsel argued that there was no deficiency of service as the reason for non-settlement of the claim was failure on the part of the insured himself to submit the requisite documents. However, he conceded that while this plea was based on the report of the surveyor, his affidavit was not filed before the District Forum. We would like to note that the law on this point has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki & others, (Civil Appeals No.2425-2428 of 2008, decided by the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India on 21.7.2010) in the following terms:-

“It goes without saying that the person filing the complaint must verify which part of his assertion is true to his knowledge- which is true to his information or is based on records.  Even though under the provisions of the said Act the procedure to be followed for adjudication on the complain is summary and does not all for any complicated production of the evidence, but the basic rules of pleading and evidence have to be followed and the complainant must support his complaint with some verification so that person, against whom such complain is made, knows what charge he has to meet.  This is the basic requirement of natural justice.”  

Therefore, in our view, the District Forum as well as the State Commission have very rightly rejected the report of the surveyor on the ground that it is not supported by the affidavit of its author.

 

7.     It is also argued on behalf of the revision petitioner that demurrage charges, awarded by the State Commission, do not fall within the terms of the policy and therefore the State Commission was wrong to have awarded the same. From a perusal of the complaint petition before the District Forum and other records, we find that the question of demurrage arose only because of non-payment of the bill for repair, which in turn, was delayed due to non-settlement of the claim for the cost of repair under the insurance policy. In other words, delay in settlement of the insurance claim was the proximate cause for the demurrage cost to arise. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be assailed on this ground.

 

8.      In the result the two revision petitions fails for want of merit. We hold that the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 611 of 2010 and FA No. 1196 of 2009, does not suffer from any infirmity which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Consequently, the two revision petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

 

.……………Sd/-……………

(V.B.GUPTA,J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

………………Sd/-………….

(VINAY KUMAR)

                                                                                            MEMBER

s./-

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,195 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: