NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. V/S R.K. SHARMA - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/4176/2009

R.K. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. V.P. SHARMA

16 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 16 Nov 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4176/2009
(Against the Order dated 05/10/2009 in Appeal No. 425/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. R.K. SHARMAS/o.Shri J.R. Sharma Resident of A-4. Oriental Enclalve I.P. Extention Delhi -110092						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Regional Manager . Regional Office 1. Jeevan Bharti Building New Delhi -1100012. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd,Div. Office No. 10 Flat No. 101-106, N-1 BMC House, New Delhi-110001						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER

For the Appellant :

MR. V.P. SHARMA

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 16 Mar 2010

ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Petitioner/complainant insured the vehicle own by him with the respondent/insurance company. The said vehicle met with an accident on 21.4.2006 during the currency of the insurance cover. The petitioner informed the insurance company as per the terms took the vehicle to M/s Competent Motors at Ghazipur for repairs. The repair charges came to Rs. 19,035/-. The petitioner paid the repair charges. The respondent/insurance company appointed surveyor who told the complainant that insurance company would have to deduct some amount due to accidental damages. Thereafter the insurance company repudiated the claim and the present complaint was filed. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 19,035/- i.e. the repair charges; Rs. 10,000/- towards harassment caused to the complainant/petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, the respondent/insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal on the ground that petitioner had already approached the Ombudsman who had granted a compensation of Rs. 13,938/-. It was held that District Forum had ignored the order passed by Ombudsman. Applying the concept of Res-judicata, the State Commission set aside the order of District Forum and allowed the appeal of the insurance company. Being aggrieved the complainant has filed the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that he did not accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman in terms of Rule 15 of The Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1988 which reads as under : R.15 Recommendations made by the Ombudsman --- (1) When a complaint is settled, through mediation of the Ombudsman, undertaken by him in pursuance of request made in writing by complainant and insurer through mutual agreement, the Ombudsman shall make a recommendation which he thinks fair in the circumstances of the case. The copies of the recommendation shall be sent to the complainant and the insurance company concerned. Such recommendation shall be made not later than one month from the date of the receipt of the complaint. (2) If a complainant accepts the recommendation of the Ombudsman, he will send a communication in writing within 15 days of the date of receipt of the recommendation. He will confirm his acceptance to Ombudsman and state clearly that the settlement reached is acceptable to him, in totality, in terms of recommendations made by the Ombudsman in full and final settlement of complaint. That since the petitioner did not accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman, the petitioners complaint was maintainable before the consumer fora. The case was adjourned for today to enable the counsel for respondent to verify as to whether the petitioner had ever accepted the recommendation of the Ombudsman. Counsel for petitioner is not in a position to controvert the assertion made by counsel for petitioner. The State Commission has clearly erred in holding that the order passed by the Ombudsman would operate as Res-judicata. The order deserves to be set aside on this short ground; case is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before State Commission on 19.05.2010. This being an old case, State Commission is requested to decide the appeal within 4 months from the date of appearance. The above revision petition is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. The respondent is directed to pay the costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant/petitioner on the first day of appearance before State Commission.

......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER