PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 20th of December, 2011 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals No. 551 of 2011 and 475 of 2011, both the original complainant and the Insurance Company have approached this Commission by filing the present petitions purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeals before the State Commission were also filed by both the parties against the order dated 3rd of February, 2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short ‘the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 612 of 2008. By the said order, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the opposite party-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.6,16,750/- to the complainant, besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental trauma and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings. In appeal, the State Commission substantially modified the said order and after taking into account the salvage value of the insured vehicle in question i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- reduced the payable amount to Rs.3,16,750/- and also waived of the compensation of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission, however, directed the payment of interest @ 4% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,16,750/- w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, both sides have filed the present petitions. While the Insurance Company prays for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the State Commission, the complainant prays for upgradation of the relief so granted by the State Commission and restoration of the order passed by the District Forum. 3. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Waghmode, learned counsel for the complainant, and Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and have considered their submissions. 4. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint, are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The insurance claim in respect of the an insured motor vehicle (a Honda City car) was repudiated by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that there was some doubt about the identity of the person, who was actually driving the vehicle in question at the time when it met with the accident. The basis of this repudiation appears to be certain observation made by the spot surveyor, where he noticed certain blood stain(s) on the steering of the damaged vehicle. Since no proof was led by the complainant to show that he was driving the vehicle in question and had suffered injuries, it became doubtful if the complainant himself was driving the vehicle in question. Both the Fora below on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record held that the repudiation of the insurance claim by the Insurance Company was not on justified grounds and, therefore, allowed the complaint in the above manner. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would assail the orders passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record. In this regard, she strenuously argued that the complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that he himself was driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident and, therefore, the investigator suspected that somebody else, other than the complainant, who was not possessing a valid and effective driving license, might have been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. In this regard, it may be noted that even after the said investigation, the investigator or for that matter the Insurance Company is not able to pin point as to who was that person, who, according to them, was actually driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time and was not holding a valid driving license. Merely because the complainant has not produced any medical record of his injuries, as, according to him, he was not injured and his brother who was sitting on the left front seat of the vehicle was injured, there was no question of the complainant producing any medical record of his injury. In any case, it was for the Insurance Company to establish that some person other than the complainant was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time, which, in our view, they have failed to do. The factum of the insurance and the accident not being in dispute, the claim of the complainant ought to have been settled in an appropriate manner and it could not be repudiated merely on suspicion that the complainant was not driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Fora below cannot be faltered. 6. Now we come to the question as to what compensation the complainant was entitled in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The survey report, by which the assessment of the loss/damage of the vehicle was made, has not been produced on record of this Commission or even before any of the two Foras below. Therefore, it has become very difficult for this Commission at this stage to record a conclusive finding in that behalf. On the request of counsel for the Insurance Company, we permit the Insurance Company to put up the said survey report before the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today. This has necessitated the remand of the matter to the State Commission for deciding the quantum of compensation going by the said survey report and any other material which may be produced on record. We order accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.12.2012. The State Commission shall decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. 7. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. |
