STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH

Appeal No.329 of 2009

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.1076-77, Sector 22, Chandigarh through its Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Surendra Building, SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ..…Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Neeraj Kumar son of Lajput Kumar, Resident of H.E.262, Ph-5, Mohali.

                                                            ..…Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

ARGUED BY: Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                        None for the respondent.

JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

1.             This is an appeal filed against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 11.5.2009 whereby complaint case No.1363 of 2008 was allowed against in the following terms:-

“……the OP shall pay full amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.  The OP are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice as mentioned above and thereby harassing the complainant and being deficient in service.  The above amount alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs shall be paid to the complainant within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 1.5.2007 (one month after the report Annexure O-3 of the investigator) till the amount is actually paid to the complainant. The complainant would inform the Registering Authority about the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the OP as required under Section 50 of the Act and Rule 55 (1) ibid in Form No.29 which, if the OP intends, may be obtained from the complainant dasti (along with RC and keys of the vehicle) at the time of making payment to him and themselves submit it to the Registering Authority along with the other papers and forms as required under the Act and Rules referred to above which shall also be signed by the complainant.

11] The OP company would be free to recover the amount of compensation, interest or litigation costs from the officer(s)/ official(s) who issued the letters Annexure O-4 dated 16.12.2008 vide which the complainant was asked to produce the untraced report and Annexure O-7 dated 31.12.2008 vide which he was asked to get the RC transferred in favour of OP and also from those officials, if any, due to whose acts the settlement of the claim was delayed, of course after giving him/them an opportunity of being heard.”

2.             Brief facts culminated to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulating thus:-

The Complainant was the owner of Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.PB-65-B-7324 (Model 2002), which was duly insured with the OP with effect from 3.4.2006 for the period of one year for an amount of Rs.15000/-. It was alleged that the father of the Complainant got the FIR registered on the theft of the said Scooter from his residence on 9.2.2007 under Section 379 IPC in Police Station Phase-I, Mohali. The complainant next averred that when the Scooter could not be traced out by the Police, untraced report was given on 12.6.2007.  It was alleged that the OP was duly informed regarding the theft of the aforesaid Scooter and about the untraced report dated 12.6.2007. As per the complainant, OP-Insurance Company was accordingly approached for getting compensation but despite various visits, OP failed to give any satisfactory reply and rather informed that the Policy had expired when the untraced report was prepared; whereas their liability to pay compensation arose when the Scooter was stolen and at that time the Policy was in force.  Alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant had filed the present complaint before the learned District Forum.

On the other hand, OP Insurance Company contested the case and denied all the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint. Pleading no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The learned District Forum allowed the complaint with the directions as reproduced in the earlier part of our judgment.

4.             We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             Now the short point of argument raised on behalf of appellant – Insurance Company is that here in the instant case, the entire insured amount i.e. Rs.14,950/- of the alleged stolen scooter was paid to the owner during the pendency of the complaint before the learned District Forum and that there was no intention to withhold the insured amount. He further submitted that in fact the necessary documents for completing the formalities before the release of the insured amount could not be shown to the appellant by the insured. On that count, there was some delay in releasing the amount. His now sole point of argument is against the imposing of penalty of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this contention raised on behalf of the insurer. The manufacturing date of the stolen scooter was of 2002. It was stolen in the year 2007. It is also an admitted fact that the insured amount of Rs.14,950/- was paid by the insurer to the complainant. It also appears from the record that the complainant/owner of the scooter was allowed to withdraw the entire deposited amount subject to furnishing his adequate security. In the given facts and circumstances, we feel that the learned District Forum has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the right perspective while awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- in this matter, which in fact is not warranted. Thus, we set aside the order of learned District Forum awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the complainant is directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- to the OP, in case he has already received the same. However, rest of the relief allowed by the learned District Forum is kept intact. It is also to add here that the complainant after receiving the insured amount had also not contested the complaint before the learned District Forum and here also, in spite of due service upon him, he never appeared before this Commission also. In view of our aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

6.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

13^th July 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

Ad/-