Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/10/2594

BAGCHAND OSWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSU.CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SH. SAMEER SAHU

01 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2594 OF 2010

 (Arising out of order dated 02.11.2010 passed in C.C.No.110/2010 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

                                                    

BHAGCHAND OSWAL.                                                                                        …         APPELLANT.

 

                Versus

 

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS.                                                 …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.07.2024

 

     Appellant is present in person.

     Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

     None for the respondent no.2 and 3.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

              This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 02.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.110/2010 whereby the complaint filed by him has been allowed.

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant’s vehicle Trax Challenger bearing registration number MP-15 A-3362 was insured with the opposite party no.1 and 2-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 23.02.2007 to 22.02.2008.  On 08.02.2008 the subject vehicle met with an

-2-

accident due to failure of steering and got damaged of which FIR was lodged with the Police Station-Rahatgarh and the insurance company was also informed. The claim along with requisite documents was filed with the insurance company.  The claim being filed by the complainant with the insurance company was repudiated vide letter dated 09.08.2008 as No Claim. The complainant therefore approached the District Commission by filing C.C.No.27/2009. The District Commission vide order dated 24.06.2009 directed the insurance company to decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days. Later on the insurance company allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.23,560/-. It is alleged by the complainant that he incurred Rs.1,12,919/- towards repairs of the vehicle. He therefore filed the present complaint seeking relief of Rs.4,70,269/-.

3.                The opposite party -insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that in compliance of order dated 24.06.2009, the insurance company got the matter settled through its regional office to the extent of Rs.23,560/- which had already been paid. It is further submitted that since the complainant submitted the bills regarding repairs on 10.08.2009, therefore delay occurred in deciding the claim.

 

-3-

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the insurance company to pay Rs.37,983.25/- towards claim after adjusting the amount of Rs.23,500/- already paid. Compensation of Rs.1,500/- with costs of Rs.500/- has also been awarded.  

5.                Having heard learned counsel for the insurance company and on perusal of record, we find that the District Commission after appreciating the material available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.37,983.25/- as assessed by the Surveyor Manoj Gupta as per his final survey report dated 16.03.2008. Earlier the insurance company had already paid a sum of Rs.23,560/- to the complainant. The District Commission has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- under the head of deficiency in service and Rs.500/- as costs. The District Commission has also directed that if the insurance company failed to pay the aforesaid amount within two months, the amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 12.03.2010.

6.                The complainant in his complaint has claimed an exaggerated amount of Rs.4,70,269/-. We find that the complainant has been adequately compensated by the District Commission and he failed to

-4-

convince us by way of any cogent ground for enhancement of compensation. We do not find any illegality of infirmity in the impugned order.

7.                In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

                      (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)       

                  Acting President                     Member