Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased an insurance policy for the vehicle bearing Chassis No. 600142QZP02332 and Engine No. 4751DI051QZP00611 from OP No. 4. The vehicle has got temporary registration number. On 29/30.1.2009 the vehicle met accident and it was reported to the police on 30.1.2009. Thereafter, the matter was reported to OP No.1 for settlement of the claim. Complainant got vehicle repaired and claimed Rs.2,43,287/- but the OP did not pay the same for which complaint was filed.
4. OP Nos. 1,2 and 4 were set ex pare.
5. OP No. 3 filed written version stating that after entering into the said agreement they financed amount as financer and they were directed to pay same to the dealer. It is stated that in the instant case, the OP – financer has never insured the vehicle as alleged and prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxxxxxxxx
Thus under the circumstances we direct the OP No. 1 Reliance General InsuranceCo.Ltd. to pay Rs.2,43,387/- (Rupees two lakh forty three thousand three hundred eighty seven) only to the complainant. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant. The above amount has to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP would liable to pay 12% (twelve percent) interest per annum on the awarded amount after 30 days of receipt of this order till the actual day of payment to the complainant.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was set ex parte for the simple reason that he has not receivedthe summon. However, he submitted that they have solved the matter and surveyor reported that the vehicle has got temporary registration number but no any permanent registration number it has and according to him occurrence took place atthe State Jharkhand. So they have repudiated the claim. However, he submitted that if opportunity be given, they would produce the materials. In support of his submission, he cited a decision reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vrs. Sushil Kumar Godara 2021 (4) TAC 521 (SC).
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
9. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased the vehicle being financed by OP No.3. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with OP No.1 for the period from 29.1.2009 to 28.1.2010 as submitted by the learnedcounsel for the appellant. It is also not in dispute that during currency of the policy, the vehicle met accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have made survey of the vehicle and surveyor’s report is made available by the learned counsel for theappellant to us. However, when surveyor’s report is made available, the repudiation of claim on flimsyground is one of the deficiency in service on thepart of the OP. However, it is submitted by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that in view of thedecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India videUnited India Insurance Co.Ltd. (Supra)in similar matter they have repudiated the claim. We have gone through the decision. It appears that in that case the complainant’s vehicle have no any registration number on the date of accident. But here admittedly the vehicle has got temporary registrationnumber which was valid from 22.1.2009 to 21.2.2009. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is not applicable to the present case. The fact of happening the occurrence outsidethe State is not a criteria to deny the claim because after the accident the vehicle was repaired inside this State by the complainant.
10. Be that as it may, when the loss of the vehicle has alreadyassessed by the surveyor and the registration number is there, we have to consider the loss sustained by the complainant. The surveyor report was made available by the appellant in this Commission which shows that they have computed the loss at Rs.1,54,000/-. Since the report of the surveyor is to be accepted as per settled law, we accept the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is in higher side. Accordingly, while affirming the finding of the learned District Forum, we hereby modify the impugned order by directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,54,000/- to the complainantthe insurance claim besides payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- within a period of 45 days from today failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till thedate of payment. The rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
