APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  23^rd    January  2020

ORDER

PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “State Commission”) on 04.11.2016, whereby, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short “District Forum”) dated 19.10.2015 was affirmed.

2.     Brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the complainant’s vehicle was insured with the OP for the period 20.07.2010 to 19.07.2011. On 18.06.2011, the vehicle met with an accident. Thereafter, the surveyor appointed by the complainant assessed the loss at Rs. 1,22,681/-. The OP refused to register the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had already filed two claims for accident on 5.01.2011 and 21.04.2011. So, as per policy conditions, the third claim could not be registered. Being aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3.     The OP filed a written version and contended that the insured vehicle was used for commercial purposes. The complainant lodged different claims on 05.01.2011 and 21.04.2011 therefore the third claim was not registered. As per condition number 6 of the policy, the claim was not payable. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP by repudiating the claim. Thus, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4.     The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay the amount of Rs. 1,16,681/- as assessed by surveyor in his report to the complainant with interest @ 10 % p.a from the date of complaint till payment.  Further, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded towards litigation expenses.

5.     Being aggrieved by the abovesaid order passed by the District Forum, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.

6.     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties. There was a delay of 81 days in filing the revision petition. In the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.

We took note of the condition no. 6 of the policy, it is reproduced below:

“The Company may cancel the policy by sending seven days notice by recorded delivery to the insured at insured’s last known address and in such event will return to the insured the premium paid less the pro rata portion thereof for the period of the Policy has been in force or the policy has been in force or the policy may be cancelled at any time by the insured on seven days’ notice by recorded delivery and provided no claim has arisen during the currency of the policy , the insured shall be entitled to a return of premium less premium at the Company’s Short Period rates for the period the Policy has been in force. Return of the premium by the company will be subject to retention of the minimum premium of Rs. 100/- (or Rs. 25/- in respect of vehicles specifically designed / modified for use by blind / handicapped / mentally challenged persons). Where the ownership of the vehicle is transferred, the policy cannot be cancelled unless evidence that the vehicle is insured elsewhere is produced”

7.     Based on the foregoing discussion, the insured cannot claim the assured amount thrice. This is against the policy conditions. The OP rightly refused to entertain the claim of the complainant.

8.     Both the fora below have erred by not considering the condition no. 6. The impugned Order of the State Commission is set aside.

The revision petition is hereby allowed, consequently the consumer complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Per Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member

9.     In the interest of justice, and to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

10.   The short point in this case is that the subject insurance policy was valid from 20.07.2010 to 19.07.2011. The petitioner insurance company settled two accident claims on the insured vehicle, in respect of accidents reported to have occurred on 05.01.2011 and 21.04.2011. It thereafter cancelled the OD (own-damage) portion of the insurance policy with effect from 08.06.2011 by giving a 7-day notice vide letter dated 01.06.2011. The amount of premium for the OD portion for the residual unexpired period of the policy was refunded by a cheque dated 10.06.2011. The cancellation and refund was in accordance with an explicit and unequivocal condition contained in the insurance policy. Thereafter the insurance company did not entertain a third accident claim, in respect of an accident reported to have occurred on 18.06.2011 i.e. after the said cancellation had come into force (08.06.2011) and after the said refund had been made (10.06.2011). As such, no ‘deficiency in service’ is made out against the petitioner insurance company.   

11.   Both the fora below have erred in appreciating the facts and evidence and have given erroneous findings, which, to remedy the error, and to prevent miscarriage of justice, necessitate exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986.

12.   The revision petition succeeds. The impugned Order dated 04.11.2016 of the State Commission and the Order dated 19.10.2015 of the District Forum are set aside. The Complaint stands dismissed.