Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/10/696

Oriental Insu. Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kesar Gas Agency - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

11 May 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 23.12.2009 passed in C.C.No.116/2009 by the District Commission, Guna)

 

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD..                                                                 …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

M/S KESHAR GAS AGENCY & ANR.                                                               …         RESPONDENTS.                                     

                                   

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA    :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

11.05.2022

 

           Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Jatin Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

As Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik :   

    

                       This appeal filed by the opposite party no.1 /appellant is directed against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.116/2009 whereby the District Commission has has held the repudiation of the complainant’s claim vide letter dated 31.12.2008 as improper and has dismissed the same and the insurance company is further directed to decide the claim on merits. Rs.500/- as costs is also awarded. Hence this appeal.

2.                The complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company for denying the

-2-

claim of Rs.1,07,800/- lost in transit, which was insured with the insurance company under L.P.G.Dealers Indemnity Policy. 

3.                The District Commission had earlier, vide order dated 17.12.2008 directed the insurance company to decide the complainant’s claim on merits and had awarded compensation & costs as Rs.1,000/-    each.

4.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/appellant argued that once they had decided the complainant’s claim and repudiated the same, the District Commission ought not to have reissued directions for yet again deciding the claim on merits.  The impugned order suffers illegality and deserves to be set-aside.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 supported the impugned order and stated that the District Commission has rightly held that the repudiation letter is not proper and has appropriately directed the insurance company to decide the claim on merits.

6.                On due consideration of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record and the impugned order, we find that the appellant insurance company has categorically repudiated the complainant’s claim vide their letter dated 31.12.2008, which is annexed as Annexed as C-9 in the record and reads thus:

 

-3-

          This has reference to our letter dated 13.03.08, we would like to inform you our terms and conditions supplied by us alongwith the original policy which states as:

                        “Section: D Exception No.3 narrates”

“Loss of cash where insured or his business staff is concerned as Principal or accessories except loss due to fraud or dishonesty of any cash carrying employees of the insured occurring whilst in transit and discovered within 48 hours”.

                       As per FIR it is learnt that your clerk Mr. Nagendra Jain seems to have been charged u/s 406 of IPC, hence we express out inability to entertain your claim and hence your claim stands ‘REPUDIATED’ which please note.

                                            Thanking you and assuring you of our best services always.

                 

7.                Now, when it is settled that the insurance company vide their letter dated 31.12.2008 had repudiated the claim, the District Commission ought to have passed an order on merits, after due consideration of the discourse involved in the case.  In not doing so, the District Commission has committed an anomaly. The impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.

8.                The case is therefore remanded back to the District Commission with a direction that it shall decide the matter on its merits after consideration of the issue involved in the case with contemplation of the reasons recorded by the insurance company in the repudiation letter.

9.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 23.06.2022.

10.              Record of the case be sent at the earliest to the District Commission.

-4-

11.              All contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties are free to file additional evidence in support of their respective contentions as and when directed by the District Commission, within the time specified for the same.

12.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

13.              With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.  However, no order as to costs.

 

     (Dr. Monika Malik)   (Dr.Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)         

     Presiding Member           Member                     Member