ORAL ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 17/09/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/09/782, Smt.Akubai Mahadev Patil v/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. It is a case of neither sanctioning nor repudiating the insurance claim under the Janata policy taken by the Government of Maharashtra for the benefit of the cultivators. Late Mahadev Shankar Patil, husband of the complainant Akubai, cultivator died in the motor vehicle accident on 13/11/2005. Thereafter, on 21/12/2005 insurance claim was made under the said policy by submitting the necessary papers to the Tahsildar as per the procedure prescribed. Thereafter appellant /Insurance Company asked for additional papers viz. FIR, police final report, xerox of passbook, etc. on 18/9/2006 and further School Leaving Certificate of late Mahadev on 15/12/2006. Complainant complied with those requirements. Thereafter, since the claim remained unsettled, ultimately, a notice was sent in the year 2009 to which there is no reply from the Insurance Company, and, hence, the consumer complaint was filed. Same stood settled in favour of the complainant directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation of `1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f.15/12/2006, further compensation of `2,000/- for mental torture and `1,000/- towards costs. Insurance Company feeling aggrieved thereby filed this appeal.
Heard Mr.Nikhil Mehta-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.S.A.Patil-Advocate for the respondent.
Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claim was not lodged with them in time. However, considering the circumstances and the fact that the claim was lodged well within time by submitting papers to the Tahsildar. If the said authority failed to forward those papers to the Insurance Company, the complainant cannot be blamed. In fact, considering quadra-party agreement of the policy, of which due notice could be taken, the Tahsildar did act as an agent of the insurance company to accept these claim papers. Furthermore, Tahsildar in his letter explained that since they were busy with some urgent work, vis-à-vis public exigencies, there was delay in sending the claim to the Insurance Company. It further appears that acting on the insurance claim, further documents were asked by the Insurance Company which were duly complied and in spite of that the insurance claim was not settled. Even notice sent to them remained unreplied. Under the circumstances, we find that claim which is legitimately made under the Janata insurance policy was rightly allowed by the forum and there is no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the forum.
Ld.counsel takes an exception to grant interest @ 9% p.a. from 15/12/2006, whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2010. We are afraid since under the Janata policy besides the liability as insurer, Insurance Company being the participant of the scheme, had to discharge social obligation for which the State Government has taken this policy, which they failed to discharge by sitting over the insurance claim by neither repudiating nor settling the same. Under the circumstances, award of interest from the date 15/12/2006 also cannot be faulted with. Since the claim is neither accepted/repudiated, the point of limitation would not come in a way to entertain this particular complaint and for this purpose a useful reference can be made to the decision of the National Commission in the matter of M/s.Hitesh Jewellers v/s. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & another in First Appeal no.518 of 2011 decided on 21/01/2013.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
Appellant to bear its own costs and pay `5000/- to the respondent.
Pronounced on 16th April, 2013.
