IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Hearing:10.09.2021

Date of Decision:21.09.2021

First Appeal No. 1043/2014

IN THE MATTER OF

SH. SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA

S/o Late Sh. Sri Ram Sharma,

R/o Ashirvad Bhawan, 2/132,

Rajender Nagar, Sector-2, Sahibadab,

Ghaziabad, U.P. ….Appellant

VERSUS

THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

‘Oriental House’

Regd. Office: A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road

New Delhi-110002

THE DIVISIONAL MANGER,

M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office-1, B-195,

Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.                                                              ....Respondent

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                             Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                        Yes

Present:          Sh. Syed Hasan, Counsel for the appellant

                        None for the respondents despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded

            ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.        The orders dated 02.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) in CC-388/2010 in the matter of Shyam Sunder Sharma versus M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, dismissing the complaint holding repudiation done by the insurer fully justified, has been assailed before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, by the complainant before the Forum, against the Insurance company, hereinafter referred to as appellant and respondents respectively, alleging that the order so passed is illegal, unjust and illegitimate without considering the entire facts and praying for setting aside the order and for the relief claimed before the Forum.
2.       Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.
3.       The appellant having obtained insurance for his Hyundai Sonata Gold Car bearing registration number DL 9C G7752 for the period of 08.10.2009 to 07.10.2010 vide policy number 252100/31/2010/2463 from the respondents met with an accident on 22.01.2010 and in the process the vehicle got burnt, intimation whereof was furnished to the respondents. The claim was preferred but the respondents had repudiated claim of the appellant vide letter dated 28.07.2010.
4.       A complaint was filed as a consequence thereof before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North District), Tis Hazari, Delhi which complaint stood dismissed on 02.04.2014 on the ground that the complainant played foul by upgrading the value of the insured vehicle and secondly the issue involved in the case being complicated question of law cannot be adjudicated by consumer forum in summary procedure leading to filing of this appeal impugning the order on the grounds that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that the respondents themselves had accepted the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 9,35,000/- while insuring car of the appellant and secondly the respondents could not be allowed to resile from the contract, once having undertaken to insure the car of the appellant.
5.       The respondents were noticed and in response thereto they have filed reply resisting the appeal stating that there exists no infirmity in the order and prayed for its dismissal, no ground according to them, since exists for interference.
6.       In the first instance this Commission condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was thereafter listed before the Commission for final hearing on 10.09.2021 when the counsel for the appellant appeared and advanced his arguments in support of his pleadings. However no one appeared on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded. I have perused the records of the case and considered the rival contentions of the parties.
7.       Short question for adjudication in this appeal is whether the orders passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint on two grounds, namely, the appellant/complainant had over valued the IDV and, secondly, the issues in the matter being complicated cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum in summary procedure suffers from any infirmity requiring interference.
8.       As regards the first issue regarding IDV on the higher side as held by the District Forum cannot sustain keeping in view the orders passed by their Lordships in the Apex Court in the matter of Dharmender Goel versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  in Civil Appeal No. 4720 of 2008 arising out of SLP No. 14054 of 2008 holding that the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy.
9.       As regards the second point whether the issue contained in the given case involves complicated question of law, it is noticed that the deliberation is to be done on the question of deficiency of service. Indisputably keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case deficiency on the part of the respondents, claim having not been passed on the IDV of the insured vehicle, is writ large on  the face. Even otherwise complicated question of law to the extent involved in the subject matter can be examined.
10.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is pleased to observe in the matter of CCI Chambers Coop. HSG. Society Ltd. versus Development Credit Bank Ltd. as reported in (2003)7 SCC 233 as under:

11.        In the case of Indian Medical Assn. versus V.D. Shartha as reported in (1995) 6 SCC 651 the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed the powers conferred on the several fora under the Act, the procedure applicable (including the exercise of powers of the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure having been made available to the fora under the Act) and held that the nature of averments made in the complaint is not by itself enough to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant raised such complicated questions as cannot be determined by NCDRC. It is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary enquiry that a forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the civil court. The fora made available under the Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and the jurisdiction of the conventional courts over such matters as are now cognizable under the Act has not been taken away.
12.        In Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) versus State Bank of India as reported in (1998)8 SCC 387,  their Lordships in the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Hon’ble NCDRC relegating a complainant to a civil court inspite of the complexity of the matter because the hearing had almost concluded before the Commission.
13.       Having regard to the discussion done the orders passed by the District Forum cannot sustain and it is accordingly set aside and direction is issued to the insurer to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 9,35,000/- to the insured within a period  of two months. Respondents are also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the appellant for causing mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
14.       Ordered accordingly.
15.       A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information. Records of the case received from the District Forum be returned forthwith.
16.       File be consigned to records.

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

MEMBER

PRONOUNCED ON

21 .09.2021

sl