Oriental Insurance Company, the petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum. Mahindra Utility Vehicle owned by the respondent, complainant, which was insured with the petitioner insurance company for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, met with an accident on 15.4.02, during the currency of the Insurance Policy. The Petitioner appointed a surveyor, to inspect the vehicle to assess the loss. Thereafter the vehicle was brought to Ambala Cantt, where it was inspected by Works Manager, who found that the vehicle was not repairable and has totally damaged. Thereafter the respondent preferred a claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance company closed the claim on the ground that the complainant had not supplied the required documents. Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,93,000/- with interest @12% alongwith litigation costs assessed at Rs.2,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The only point argued before the State Commission was that the consumer forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint as the dispute could only be decided by the ‘Ombudsman’ appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938. The State Commission rejected this contention relying upon certain judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy and the complaint is maintainable. The State Commission dismissed the appeal with the slight modification in the order passed by the District Forum in as much as the respondent was directed to handover the salvage of the vehicle alongwith registration certificate before making the payment. Even in the memo of revision, the petitioner has not stated that he had argued any point other than what has been noticed and decided by the State Commission. The order passed by the State Commission is equitable and does not require any interference. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | |
