STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

State Govt. of Haryana through the Director of Lotteries, Haryana, Director Office, above Allahabad Bank, Bank Square, Sector – 17B, Chandigarh. Now at Bays No.21-28, Yojna Bhawan, Sector 4, Panchkula.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. The General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Head Office: 24 White Road, Madras – 600014.
2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.357-58, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

2.          

3.          

4.    

5.          6.          

7.           informed that the matter of claim was under consideration but even after about 2 ½ years, no response was given by them. It was further stated that on 28.5.2002 and 19.6.2002, the matter was discussed between the complainant and the Branch Manager of the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that finally, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 8.7.2002 

8.          

9.          

10.        

11.         

12.         

13.        

14.            

15.                         

16. 

17.  …….WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE CLAIM, WE HAVE DELVED DEEP INTO THE CONTROVERSY AND EXAMINED EVERY FACIT OF IT THREADBARE AND IT HAS BEEN REVEALED CLEARLY THAT SOME VALUABLE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CONTROVERSY WERE NOT DISCLOSED………IT HAS COME OUT IN ITS STARK REALITY FROM THE DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS AND PERUSAL OF RECORDS THAT YOU HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOSS BEING CAUSED BY YOUR OWN EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATED EVERY RULE OF THE BOOK WITH IMPUNITY…………”

18.  

19.        

20. Commission as interest @18% per annum claimed on Rs.25.00 lacs works out tobeRs.76,50,000/- and total amount of Rs.1,01,50,000/- exceeds Rs.One crore, clearly the claim is for an amount of Rs.25 lacs only and the question of allowing interest is to be determined by this Commission.The Opposite Parties cannot calculate the amount of interest assuming that whatever interest is claimed by the complainant, shall be allowed. Claiming exorbitant interest cannot alter the pecuniary jurisdiction ofConsumerForas. In Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellant Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the facts were that the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, claiming an amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, with interest @18% per annum, on this amount from the date of claim, till realization. It also claimed suitable damages, on account of loss caused to it. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 08.08.2002, disposed of the complaint with liberty reserved to the complainant to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that if interest @18% P.A. was allowed, on the amount of Rs.18,33,000/-, the amount will exceed Rs.20 lakhs (at that time the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was upto Rs.20 lacs), for which it had no pecuniary Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant/appellant filed the aforesaid appeal. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid appeal held as under:-

“Bare reading of the prayer made would show that the interest claimed by appellant pertains to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future. Rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of State Commission and the stage for exercise of such a discretion would be the time when the complaint is finally disposed of. Thus, the State Commission had acted erroneously in adding to the amount of Rs. 18,33,000/- the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till date of filing of complaint for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction before reaching the said stage. Order under appeal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint is now to be dealt with by the District Forum instead of State Commission.

Accordingly, while accepting appeal, the order dated 8.8.2002 is set aside. On complaint being returned by the State Commission, the appellant is permitted to file it before the appropriate District Forum for being decided on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs”.

21.        

22.        

23.        

“2.        

24.          ,

“The contracts of insurance including the contract of life assurance are contracts uberruna fides and every fact of material must be disclosed, otherwise, there is good ground for rescission of the contract. The duty to disclose material facts continues right up to the conclusion of the contract and also implies any maternal alteration in the character of the risk which may take place between the proposal and its acceptance. If there are any misstatements or suppression of material facts, the policy can be called in question. for determination of the question whether there has been suppression of any material facts it may be necessary to also examine whether the suppression relates to a fact which is in the exclusive knowledge of the person intending to take the policy and it could not be ascertained by reasonable enquiry by a prudent person.”

In the instant case, though the proposal form, has not been placed, on record, either by the complainant or the Opposite Parties, apparent concealment of this material fact, relating to the allegations of misconduct, against Shri Rajbir Singh 

25.    

26.        

27.        

28.         

29.         

1.      2.      3.  Total Loss from 1993 to 1996