(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the Insurance Company-opposite party against the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 26 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 78,750/- against the cost of repair, Rs. 500/- for mental agony and financial loss and also Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses total Rs. 79,750/- within one month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant shall also be entitled to get interest @ 5% per annum on the above amount from the date of order till the date of actual payment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Sh. Chandra Mohan Singh Rawat (deceased)-Husband of the complainant-Smt. Mamta Rawat was the registered owner of the vehicle Max Cab bearing registration No. UA07 N 0897, which was insured by The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-opposite party for the period from 29.05.2009 to 28.05.2010 and the number of the insurance policy is 252908/31/2010/509. The said vehicle was driven by the complainant’s husband himself. On 10.09.2009 at 08:30 p.m. the said vehicle was met with an accident near about 200 meters from District Chamoli. Her husband got serious injuries and due to these injuries, he died on 12.09.2009 at Rudraprayag hospital. The complainant lodged an F.I.R. against this accident at Thana Chamoli and also informed the insurance company about the said accident. The opposite party-insurance company appointed the surveyor for spot inspection. The surveyor inspected and assessed the accidental vehicle and said to the complainant to repair the vehicle. The complainant spent Rs. 98,000/- on repairing of the vehicle and also fulfill all the formalities of the claim, but the insurance company did not pay any amount against the claim to the complainant, by which the complainant is suffering from financial loss and mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli.
3. The opposite party-insurance company filed its written statement before the District Forum, in which the insurance company accepted to survey the accidental vehicle by their surveyor Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta and directed the complainant to fulfill all the formalities and repair the accidental vehicle. On 04.11.2009, the Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Srinagar sent a letter to the complainant and asked the complainant about the place where she wants to get final survey conducted and simultaneously, she should sent estimate of repair. The insurance company further asked the complainant to send the duly attested Registration Certificate of the vehicle and Driving License of Sh. Chandra Mohan Singh Rawat on Form-54. The complainant sent a letter to the Branch Manager that her husband met with an accident while he was driving the vehicle and he expired on 12.09.2009. Therefore, she could not file the claim of the vehicle and thereby refused to accept the claim of vehicle. After receiving this letter, the insurance company has closed the file of the complainant’s claim, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 27.03.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-insurance company has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company Mrs. Savita Sethi and Mr. Yudhvir Handa a learned counsel for respondent-complainant and have also perused the record.
6. There is no dispute regarding the registration of the vehicle. There is also no dispute that the said vehicle was insured by the appellant-insurance company. In the written statement/objections filed by the appellant before the District Forum (Paper Nos. 15/1 to 15/2) it is stated that after the intimation received by the respondent, the appellant immediately deputed the surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the spot survey, who in-turn conducted the survey on 18.09.2009 and gave his observation. The appellant sent a registered letter to the respondent dated 04.11.2009 to fulfill all the formalities. After receiving the letter of the appellant-insurance company, the respondent-complainant sent reply to the insurance company that she could not file the claim, therefore, she refused to accept the claim. So the insurance company has no alternative except to close the complainant’s claim file. The insurance company has never been deficient in rendering its services to the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for respondent argued before this Commission that the insurance company-appellant never sent any repudiation letter to the respondent. A letter filed by the insurance company before the District Forum (Paper No. 17/12 on the record of District Forum) is undated, which is never signed by the respondent Smt. Mamta Rawat. This letter is not authentic and is created fraudulently. The respondent has categorically stated on oath during cross examination before the District Forum on 27.09.2011 as PW-1 that she had never sent any letter (Paper Nos. 17/7 & 17/12) to the insurance company and she had never signed over these letters. Learned counsel also argued that in her cross-examination, the respondent has stated on oath that the bills regarding repairing of vehicle and the photocopies were sent to the insurance company. The respondent has also stated on oath during her cross-examination that she did not refuse to accept the claim. The insurance company is responsible to pay the claim amount according to the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel argued that Sh. Dashrath Singh Rawat, father of the deceased Sh. Chandra Mohan Singh Rawat, has also filed his affidavit in evidence before the District Forum, who has also stated on oath that after the death of his son, the wife and children of the deceased are facing hardship, as the insurance company has not paid the claim amount so far. Sh. Dashrath Singh Rawat has also filed certified copy of the driving license of deceased Sh. Chandra Mohan Singh Rawat, which is at paper No. 4/9 on the District Forum’s record, which was valid for the period from 12.02.2008 to 11.02.2011. There was an endorsement for hill routes also.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. Kalavathi; I (2013) CPJ 396 (NC). In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the policy of the vehicle was not transferred after the death of complainant’s husband and the relationship as ‘consumer’ and ‘Insurance Company’ as ‘service provider’ came to an end. With due respect to the Hon’ble National Commission, the above cited decision is not applicable in the present case, because the instant case is not a case of policy transfer. Learned counsel for the appellant also cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Muddeerswara Mining Industries Co. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2006) CPJ 412 (NC). In this case, it is mentioned that in absence of proof of bills, surveyor’s report cannot be found fault with. But with due respect to the Hon’ble National Commission, the above cited decision is also not applicable in the present case, because in the instant case, the surveyor surveyed the spot and gave only his observation to the insurance company and not assess the loss. The respondent has already filed bills of repair of vehicle, which is not challenged by the appellant-insurance company.
9. The District Forum has properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and passed a reasoned order, which cannot be interfered by this Commission, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI)
