This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      03-05-11 in the presence of Sri P.Krishna, advocate for complainant and of Sri S.A. Khadar, advocate for Opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complaint filed this complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking Rs.21,000/- towards balance due, RS.5,000/- towards delay and negligence from the date of theft, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with interest and for costs.   

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant insured his car bearing No. AP 31 R 3567 on 19-04-08 with the opposite party for Rs.1,70,000/-.   The complainant parked his car on 26-06-08 near railway station.   The complainant approached the opposite party several times to settle the claim.   The insurance company settled the claim for Rs.1,49,000/- by taking unilateral decision.   The act of the opposite party in not paying the entire insured value amounted to deficiency of service.   

3.    The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

The complainant is not a consumer and as such this petition is not maintainable.  The complainant after receiving cheque for Rs.1,22,000/- from the opposite party approached the insurance ombudsman, Hyderabad.  As per orders of the ombudsman the opposite party paid Rs.27,000/- to the complainant.  After receiving the said amount the complaint filed this complaint.   As the opposite party honoured the orders passed by the ombudsman the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party.

5. Now the points for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.    POINTS 1 & 2:-   The complainant insuring his vehicle with the opposite party and occurring theft during validity of policy is not disputed (Ex.A-1).   Exs.A-2 and A-3 revealed that the complainant gave a report to the SHO, Kothapet crime PS who registered it as a Cr.No.70/08 and issued final report on 01-02-09 as closed as ‘undetectable’.  

7.     Ex.A-5 is the copy of order of Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad dated 23-09-09.   Ex.A-5 revealed that the opposite party paid Rs.1,22,000/-.  After hearing the complainant and the opposite party herein, the ombudsman awarded a further sum of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant.   That is how the complainant received Rs.1,49,000/-   Not satisfied with the amount of Rs.1,49,000/- the complainant approached this Forum again.   It is the complainant who approached the insurance ombudsman after receiving Rs.1,22,000/- from the opposite party.   It is not the case of the complainant that he received Rs.1,49,000/- towards part satisfaction of his claim.   The Consumer Forum cannot sit as an appellate authority over the orders of the ombudsman in our considered view gained support from the decision reported in Rajendra Panigrahy vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 2010(4) CPR 107 wherein it was held

        “Consumer Forum cannot sit in appeal to examine the propriety         of order passed by ombudsman in insurance claim where     complainant had accepted the award given by insurance      ombudsman”. 

8.     Para 4 of the complainant is extracted below for better appreciation:

        “The complainant approached the opposite party several times to settle the claim that the opposite party acted most negligently.  The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony due to the negligent acts of the opposite party.  Then the insurance company settled the claim for Rs.1,49,000/- by taking unilateral decision and paid that amount”.

9.     Ex.A-5 order disclosed that the insurance ombudsman passed the award on hearing both sides.   The complainant coined that the opposite party unilaterally settled the claim to approach this Forum once again.  In view of the order under Ex.A-5 it cannot be said that the opposite party committed deficiency of service and as such the complainant is not entitled to any damages under any head.  Hence, these points are answered in favour of the opposite party.

10.   POINT No.3:-     The conduct of the opposite party in approaching the Forum even after settling the claim before the ombudsman in our considered view amounted to vexatious litigation and dismissing the complaint with costs will meet the ends of justice.         

        In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-(payable to the opposite party) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order.  

  Typed to my dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, dated this the 16th day of May, 2011.       

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:         NIL

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT