Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal is filed by org. opponent/Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in consumer complaint No.288/2000 on 18/03/2002. By allowing the complaint partly, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of `1,80,000/- towards compensation for the insurance claim in respect of her insured vehicle which met with an accident with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01/03/1999 till realization and also directed to pay `5,000/- towards compensation and `2,000/- towards costs.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are as under :-
The complainant insured her Tempo Trax Jeep bearing No.MH-11-G-5640 with opponent/Insurance Company by purchasing comprehensive insurance policy. The policy was in force from 21/04/1998 to 20/04/1999. Said vehicle met with an accident on 18/11/1998 at Pimpawade Budruk to Wathar Road. The complainant informed the accident to Police. The complainant got repaired the vehicle to make it roadworthy again and lodged claim with the Insurance Company. However, Insurance Company did not sanction the claim and therefore, alleging deficiency in service, she filed consumer complaint for recovering the amount of `2,50,000/-.
3. The opponent/Insurance Company denied the contentions of the complainant by filing written version. According to the opponent/Insurance Company insurance cover for the complainant’s vehicle was admitted. It also admitted that the complainant had submitted claim papers to the Insurance Company, but did not provide correct information about the accident and concealed the material facts and it averred that the complainant has submitted claim form on 24/11/1998 and on the date of accident, driver Mr.Anant Eknath Mane was not having driving licence. But in police papers, name of the driver mentioned was Mr.Dilip Eknath Mane, who was shown to be driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Opponent/Insurance Company informed the complainant about the same. On 31/03/1999 complainant filed affidavit with opponent stating that Mr.Dilip Eknath Mane and Mr.Anant Eknath Mane was the same person and Mr.Anant is the pet name of Mr.Dilip. The opponent therefore pleaded that her claim was repudiated on this count itself because in Police papers name of Mr.Dilip Mane was shown as driver at the time of accident, but in the claim form, complainant has mentioned Mr.Anant Mane as driver of the vehicle, who according to the opponent was not having driving licence.
4. Considering the facts and documents placed on record, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum did not buy the arguments of Insurance Company that there was discrepancy in the name of driver of the vehicle and the plea of Insurance Company on that ground was not accepted by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that opponent was guilty of deficiency in service and therefore, it directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of `1,80,000/- by allowing the complaint by passing award to that effect. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
5. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.J.S. Chandnani for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr.Deval Anza, Advocate Proxy for Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.
6. Apart from anything, we are finding that the award of `1,80,000/- as passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is appearing to be absolutely perverse and bad in law. In as much as, there is on record in appeal compilation at page-63 a letter written by Mr.Namdo S. Mane, who is husband of respondent. Said Mr.Mane wrote a letter to the Insurance Company, Satara on 25/02/1999 much before filing of the consumer complainant stating that their Tempo Trax No.MH-11-G-5640 met with an accident on 181/11/1998 and he got the vehicle repaired and he mentioned that he had made expenses of `64,210/- for repairing said vehicle and therefore, insurance claim of that amount should be awarded to him. This letter undoubtedly established that the respondent herein had incurred expenses of `64,210/- for repairs of the Tempo Trax involved in the accident and husband of respondent had specifically written letter to that effect and requested the Insurance Company to approve his claim to that extent. When this letter was on record, this letter was not given any weightage by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum curiously awarded amount of `1,80,000/- though the Insurance Company was simply willing to pay `30,500/- as per Surveyor’s Report. We do not find that on what basis amount of `1,80,000/- was sanctioned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, but the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum mentioned in one para of the judgement that in view of facts and circumstances and material placed on record they were of the opinion that the complainant was entitled to get `1,80,000/- as per original bills and vouchers of repairs already submitted by her with the opponent along with claim form. However, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum lost sight of the fact that on 25/02/1999 husband of the complainant had requested the Insurance Company to sanction claim of `64,210/- as he had incurred that much expenses for repairing his ill-fated vehicle involved in the accident. In this view of the matter, by allowing this appeal partly, we are inclined to modify operative part of the order to allow claim of respondent only to the extent of `64,210/- in place of `1,80,000/- granted by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under this award. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal partly. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. In place of amount of “`1,80,000/-” amount of insurance claim payable shall be “`64,210/-”. Rest of the order is confirmed.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 14th November 2011.
