Kundan Kumar Kumai

This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, preferred against the Judgement and the order dated 15/06/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, in CC no. 60 of 2018.

Brief fact of the appellants’ case is that the appellants had purchased one Overseas Mediclaim Insurance policy in the name of the appellants by paying Rs. 7,70,000/- (Seven lakh seventy thousand only), through their banks at Raiganj branch.

In the month of October, the appellant availed the Europe Tour package by Tour and Travelers of Cox and Kings Ltd., they then reached London on 12/10/2016, where an incident of theft took place and the passport of all the appellants, along with valuable articles had been stolen by some unknown miscreants. The matter had been reported before the local police station and application had been made for issuance of fresh passport before the Indian Embassy, who had then issued fresh passport in favour of the appellant. For such reason, the appellant had to suffer huge expenditure. Thereafter, on 21/10/2016, the appellants returned to their native place on 21/10/2016 and after depositing the original bills and vouchers before the office of the respondent no. 1, claimed payment of the expenses incurred, due to the loss of passport. But no fruitful result could be obtained and inspite issuance of several reminders, by letters as well as e-mail, no response was received. The Op insurance company whimsically delayed the proceeding, causing monitory loss and subjecting the appellants, to mental pain and agony. Finding no alternative, they filed the case, before Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj with necessary prayers.

The respondent no. 1 did not appear to contest the case before the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj, following which the case was heard ex-parte against them.

The respondent no. 2 and 3 contested the claim by filling written version, wherein they mentioned that the insurance company, with whom the appellants had contractual relation, were responsible.

The respondent no. 4 insurance company contested the claim by filing written version, wherein they denied, having any contractual obligation as the policy had started from 13/10/2016, whereas the incident had occurred on 12/10/2016. That apart, the appellants were not direct customer of the respondent insurance company and for which the respondent insurance company was not liable. Moreover, the claim had not been supported by any documents.

After hearing the Ld. Advocates and ongoing through the evidence on record, the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj had passed impugned order allowing the case against the respondent no. 1,2,3 and 4 and directing the respondent no. 4, to pay a sum of Rs. 63,000/- (Sixty-Three Thousand) only, towards the theft/loss of 4 passports along with 25,000/-(Twenty-Five Thousand only) towards mental pain and agony and 5000/-as litigation cost, totaling to Rs. 93,000/-(Ninety-Three Thousand Only) payable within 1 month from the date of the order, failing which the above amount would attract simple interest @ 6% P.A., from the date of incident i.e., 13/10/2016 till the date of realization.

Being aggrieved by the above order the appellants preferred this instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. Forum below, had failed to consider the other expenditure of Rs. 4,50,000/-(Four-Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and the compensation awarded was also paltry, considering that there had been 4 members who had suffered the mental agony in a foreign land.  

                              Decision With reason,

Ld. advocate for the appellant at the time of final hearing had submitted, that only respondent no. 4 insurance company had contested the claim wherein they had acceded the payment of compensation @ 250USD per person, but had denied the claim of the appellants for the amount of this Rs. 4,50,000/-. He had also assailed the impugned order on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj had failed to consider the expenses, amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- (Four-Lakh Fifty Thousand only). That apart the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj had also granted a paltry amount as compensation for mental agony and pain, as the amount granted in the impugned order amounted to only Rs.6250/- (Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) only, per appellant. He has relied in the Judgement passed in the Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, By the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reported as (2004) 5 SCC 65.

Ld. advocate for the respondent no. 4 insurance company had countered the argument, on the ground that the appellant had no ground as per the policy condition and apart from the liability for the loss of passport, which was USD 250, no further compensation was admissible to the appellant. In this regard the decretal amount of Rs. 23,250/-(Twenty-Three Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty) only each, had already been deposited by 4 account payee cheques on 28/07/2022. He therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Since none appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1,2 and 3 the case was heard ex-parte against them.

Therefore, from the above it transpires that the factual aspect of the case is not disputed. The only point of contention between the two parties is, whether be appellants are entitled to the expenses incurred by them, due to the loss of their passports or not. The Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj while passing the impugned order had gone through the policy and did not mention the existence of such clause where by the appellants would be compensated for the expenditure incurred by them due to loss of such passport. Commonsense, also points out that anyone with loss of passport would claim for expenditure incurred and the insurance company while honoring such claim would become bankrupt, because if the claim amount had been huge amount instead of 4,50,000/- (Four-Lakh Fifty Thousand only). It would encourage the people to claim exorbitant amounts through such clause. Under the circumstance, it becomes difficult to justify that the appellants prayer for compensation, even if it had been supported with vouchers and bills should have been compensated. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted.

However, as pointed out by the Ld. advocate for the appellant the amount for compensation for mental pain and agony amounting to Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty-Five Thousand only) for 4 appellants does appear to be paltry, considering the anxiety and pain suffered by the appellants in a foreign land. Hence, the amount for compensation towards the mental pain and agony suffered by the appellants be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-Five Thousand only) each. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds in part.

                                        It is there for

                                            ordered,

The instant appeal be and same is allowed in part against the Respondent no. 4 and dismissed ex-parte against Respondent no. 1,2 and 3.

The impugned order is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent no. 4 insurance company shall pay extra Rs. 75,000/-(Seventy-Five Thousand only) to the appellants in addition to the decretal amount already deposited by the Respondent No. 4 /insurance company.

Copy of the order, be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Copy of the order, be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Raiganj for necessary information and compliance.