Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Manasi Karandikar on behalf of the Appellant/ original Opponent and Adv. M. S. Kadu on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant.
[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 21/1/2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.120 of 2009, Mr. Balaram Dhakwal Vs. Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. The appeal is preferred by the Appellant/ original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the insurance company’ for the sake of brevity) being the aggrieved party. It was a consumer complaint in respect of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company for not allowing the entire insurance claim. The claim arose on account of submerge of insured vehicle in the sudden flood-waters. The Forum accepted the contention of the Respondent/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) and directed the insurance company to pay compensation of `1,81,462/- i.e. amount equivalent to disputed claim of the insurance alongwith interest. The Forum also further awarded compensation of `5,000/- towards mental torture besides costs of `5,000/-.
[3] Out of total claim of `2,04,986/- i.e. estimate of repairs, only an amount of `23,524/- was paid on behalf of the Complainant directly to the workshop where the insured vehicle was given for repairs. When from the workshop it was informed to the Complainant that the insured vehicle was fully repaired and he should take the insured vehicle on payment of balance amount of costs of repairs of `1,81,462/-, since the insurance company did not pay that amount, the Complainant himself had paid it and taken the insured vehicle in his possession on 6/1/2007. In the meantime, the office of insurance company got shifted from its original address and thereafter, on searching for its new office, the Complainant had served a legal notice to the insurance company on 8/12/2008 to which the insurance company gave a reply on 2/9/2009, repudiating the claim and, therefore, the consumer complaint was filed on 6/10/2009.
[4] The case of the insurance company is that the amount of `23,524/- was paid in full and final settlement of the claim and since the damage to the engine of the insured vehicle was consequential in nature, the entire claim could not be sanctioned. The insurance company failed to justify such repudiation by filing appropriate evidence under Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the circumstances, what has been observed by the Forum cannot be faulted with. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 1st December, 2011
