NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2369/2010

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SUSHMA ENGINEERING - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. M.C. TYAGI & ASSOCIATES

03 Aug 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2369 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 29/03/2010 in Appeal No. 39/2009 of the State Commission Goa)

1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Having its Registered and Head Office at: 24, Whites Road Channai Tamil Nadu	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S. SUSHMA ENGINEERING Represent Through it Partner, Mr. Mahadev N. Naik, E-19, Matvem Chicalim Goa	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 03 Aug 2010

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The District Forum had granted Rs.1,85,431.96 towards the repair bill with 9% interest thereon as also damages /compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5000/- as cost in relation to the accident of the vehicle which was insured with the Petitioner. The State Commission on the basis of the survey report and the other material on record reduced the amount from Rs.1,85,431.96 to Rs.92,530.86 as revised by the surveyor. However, the interest, damages/compensation and cost were maintained. In our opinion, the order of the State Commission is just, fair and equitable. The Insurance Company, in our view, had acted in a very highhanded manner by informing the complainant vide letter dated 26.5.2005 that it would be compelled to close the file as o claimeven after the company had initially offered a sum of Rs.82,000/- for settlement as per survey report. On account of which the Complainant was forced to approach the District Forum. Consequently award of Rs.20,000/- as compensation is justified in facts and circumstances of this case. In view of this, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER