Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/699/2015

The Orential Ins. Co. Ltd. Through M.D. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renu Kumar Jain s/o Ratan Lal Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Virendra Agarwal

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 699 /2015

 

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through MD regd and Head Office A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi & ors.

Vs.

Renu Kumar Jain r/o Prop.Gandhar Rocktech, Shastri Market Bhagat Chauraha,Beawar, Ajmer.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 641 /2015

 

Renu Kumar Jain r/o Prop.Gandhar Rocktech, Shastri Market Bhagat Chauraha,Beawar, Ajmer.

Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through MD regd and Head Office A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi & ors.

 

Date of Order 15.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

2

 

Mr.Virendra Agarwal counsel for the Insurance Company

Mr.Tarun Mishra counsel for the complainant Renu Kumar Jain

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Ajmer dated 16.4.2015. The consumer has came in appeal for enhancement of the claim whereas the contention of the Insurance Company is that no claim was filed before them hence, the complaint is pre-mature. The Forum below has allowed the claim without deducting the amount of salvage and during course of arguments it has also been stated that the complaint before the Forum below was without jurisdiction and less court fees has been paid.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

Before going into merit of the case it will be appropriate to consider the jurisdiction of the court below. The contention of the appellant Insurance Company is that complaint was filed for original amount of Rs. 18,30,000/- which was IDV value of the

3

 

policy and further Rs. 19 lakhs has been claimed for mental harassment and thus, the complaint could not be lie before the District Forum as having pecuniary jurisdiction only upto the Rs. 20 lakhs and the court fees is also deficiate.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the Forum below was not having jurisdiction to entertain the original complaint as it exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum below. There is no dispute about the fact that the original complaint was contain relief for more than Rs. 20 lakhs but no such plea as regard jurisdiction was taken by the appellant before the Forum below and even before this Commission and further more when the matter has been finally decided after hearing both the parties and the claim which has been ultimately passed is for less than Rs. 20 lakhs, it would not be proper to entertain the plea of jurisdiction at this stage and so also the plea of court fees. Hence, both these objections of the appellant Insurance Company are not sustainable.

 

Further the contention of the appellant is that Forum below has ordered to pay the IDV amount of Rs. 18,30,000/- but nothing has been ordered as regard to salvage. The contention of the respondent complainant is that he is ready to deposit the

4

 

wreck. It has also been contended by the appellant Insurance Company that no claim has been submitted but this is only after thought argument which has not been taken before the Forum below.

 

Looking to the arguments and facts of the case, the order of the Forum below suffers from infirmity as nothing has been ordered as regard to salvage. Hence, it will be appropriate to order that the complainant-respondent would deposit the salvage with the appellant Insurance Company within one month from the date of the order otherwise the appellant Insurance Company is entitled to deduct Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of salvage as assessed by the surveyor.

 

The appellant complainant has submitted that the Forum below has not allowed any interest on the amount.

 

Looking to the facts of the case that the Forum below has ordered for the IDV value to be paid to the appellant complainant, it would be appropriate to allow interest @ 9% p.a. to the appellant complainant from the date of filing of the

 

 

5

 

complaint i.e. 27.5.2013. Rest of the order of the Forum below needs no correction.

 

In view of the above both these appeals are decided accordingly.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm