State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Ins Co Ltd. vs Jaydeep Cotton Fibres on 31 March, 2023
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 31 03 2023
Date of filing 04 04 2014
Duration 27 11 08
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 03
APPEAL NO. 796 of 2014
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office No. 2
Second Floor, "Haren"
TrikonBag, Rajkot. ...Appellant.
V.s
Jaydeep Cotton Fibers Pvt. Ltd.
Director Mr. Alpeshbhai Vallbhbhai Patel
Registry Office 213 Plenary Arcade,
Nr. Bombay Garage Petrol Pump,
Gondal Road, Rajkot. ...Respondents.
=============================================================
BEFORE: Mr. I. D. Patel, Judicial Member.
APPERANCE: Mr. V. P. Nanavaty for the appellant.
Mr. R. V. Sakariya, L.A. for the respondent.
==============================================================
ORDER BY Mr. I. D. PATEL, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed this appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(main), in Forum Case No.312/2013. The appellant is the original opponent as well as the respondent is the original complainant in this appeal. Therefore, for the sake of convenience parties are referred to by their original nomenclature/status.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant Jaydeep Cotton Fibers Pvt. Ltd. had taken Inland Transit ( Rail or Road Clause-A) (All Risk) policy of sum insured of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the opponent Insurance Company for the period of 18.10.2010 to 17.10.2011. It is further, the case of the complainant that during the said period of the K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 1 of 12 Policy as on 25.08.2011 complainant had purchased F. P. Cotton Bales worth of Rs. 15,77,968/- from M/s. Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. situated at Village Bhari, Nr. Airport Road, Yavatmal (Maharashtra), and book the Gautam Carrier for transportation of the goods from Yavatmal to Mumbai. It is further, the case of the complainant that the said goods sent by the Gautam Carrier in the Truck No. MH31-CB-4861 from Yavatmal to Mumbai. But the said truck did not reach to Mumbai and driver fled away with the goods and the truck and therefore, the complainant informed the same to the Insurance Company as on 08.09.2011 along with the Transport bill, party bill, L.R copy, Insurance monthly statement and Police Papers and complainant has also produced the certificate dated 07.06.2012 issued by the Gautam Carrier regarding the missing of the truck consignment in the Insurance Company. It is further, the case of the complainant that the Insurance Company appointed the surveyor for the assessment of loss of goods of the complainant and as per the survey report dated 26.04.2012 the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 15,77,968/- and that loss caused on account of theft and criminal breach of trust. It is further the case of the complainant that though the surveyor has submitted his final report to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company has not settled the claim of the complainant for a long time and thereby the Insurance Company committed the deficiency in service and therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot, against the Insurance Company.
3. That the opponent Insurance Company has filed the written statement against the complaint of the complainant before the Ld. Forum, thereby, the opponent Insurance Company had denied all the allegations made by the complainant about deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. Furthermore, Insurance Company has also raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint as stated in the para 3, and 4 of the written statement. That the Insurance Company has also contented in their written statement that as per the letter dated 22.08.2012 written by the Insurance Company to the complainant. Insurance Company asked certain questions from the complainant and also asked certain document as stated in the letter for settlement of the claim but as per the contention of the Insurance Company in spite of numerous reminders to the complainant for compliance of the letter dated 22.08.2012 of the Insurance Company. The complainant had not complied with the same and complainant also not provided the necessary explanation regarding the mismatch of the document provided by the K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 2 of 12 complainant. It is also contended by the Insurance Company in the written statement that Insurance Company has not taken any final decision of claim of complainant hence complainant has filed premature complaint. Hence same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly Insurance Company prays for the dismissal of the complaint of the complainant with costs.
4. After hearing the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and after perusing the evidence produced by the both the parties before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot, Ld. Dispute Forum, is pleased to allow the complaint of the complainant and directed the opponent Insurance Company to pay Rs. 17,35,764/- along with the interest at the rate of 9% from 25.06.2012 and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for the costs of litigation. Hence being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot, appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act on the ground stated in the appeal memo.
5. Heard the Ld. Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh on behalf of the Ld. Advocate of the appellant V. P. Nanavaty, and also heard the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, on behalf of the respondent original opponent. That the Ld. Advocate of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (Main), in Forum Case No. 312/2013 dated 30.12.2013 including the finding recorded thereof are perverse and erroneous and same cannot be sustained in eye of law. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the appellant Insurance Company that while allowing the complaint of the complainant Ld. District Forum, has not considered the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the correspondence and communications made by the Insurance Company. That the Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. Darshil Parikh, has also submitted that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is premature and not tenable in eye of law. Furthermore, Ld. Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh, has also submitted that the Insurance Company had written letter dated 22.08.2012 to the complainant produced at page 98 whereby the Insurance Company had raised 6 queries or points for settlement of the claim of the complainant and according to the said letter the incident in question took place as on 25.08.2011 whereas the complainant informed K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 3 of 12 the Insurance Company regarding the incident as on 08.09.2011. so, the complainant informed the insurance company about the incident very late and not in time. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company that as per the invoice of the M/s. Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. The goods is sold to the complainant on 26.08.2011 whereas the lorry receipt issued by Gautam Carrier Cargo mentioned the date 25.08.2011. So, there is a Variance regarding purchase of goods in invoice as well as lorry receipt of the Gautam Carrier that creates a doubt about the claim of the complainant. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company that in the invoice the destination is shown as Panvel where as transporter, L.R, as well as in the Police Papers reflect destination as Nava Sheva Mumbai. So, there is also variance of the destination of the goods of the complainant. Furthermore, Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company has also submitted that the complaint regarding the loss of goods is lodged by Gautam Carrier and not by the complainant as per the letter dated 22.08.2012 and i.e. also the fault on the part of the complainant. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company that the insured has not followed the procedure of claim against the carriers which is required to be followed in the event of loss of damage as per the carrier Act and the notice issued by the complainant to the Gautam Carrier dated 23.09.2011 page 46 is unsigned notice and therefore, it cannot be said to be legal notice issued by the complainant to the carriers to secure the amount of lost goods of the complainant and it is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company that even the complainant has also not submitted English translation of the police papers which are in the Marathi language of the Insurance Company for the settlement of the claim and the complainant has also not submitted claim bill to the Insurance Company in spite of reminders of letters written by the Insurance Company dated 22.08.2012, 06.09.2012 and 18.10.2012 that it is also further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company that the lastly the Insurance Company send final reminder to the complainant which is produced at page 96 however, the complainant has not provided necessary document for settlement of the claim by the Insurance Company. So, as per the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim of the complainant and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is premature and is not tenable in the eye of law and the claim of the complaint is not payable by the Insurance Company Ld. Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh, has also made alternative submission that if K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 4 of 12 the commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get the amount as granted by the Ld. District Commission, then the complainant is not entitled to get any amount of interest on the amount of compensation. That the Ld. Advocate Mr, Darshil Parikh, has also submitted that even if the complainant is entitled to get the amount of compensation then he has entitle to get the amount of compensation on non standard basis because of breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh has also submitted that the Ld. District Forum, has granted interest at the rate of 9% from the date of 25.06.2012 i.e. date of submission of survey report but Insurance Company has not received the survey report as on 25.06.2012 therefore, the grant of interest from the date of 25.06.2012 is also not just and proper.
6. Per contra Ld. Advocate of the respondent/original complainant R. V. Sakariya, has vehemently supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(Main), and he has also submitted that the findings recorded by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(Main), for allowing the complaint of the complainant are based on documentary evidence produced by the both the parties of the Ld. Forum, and Ld. Forum has rightly considered the documentary evidence produced by the parties and there is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Ld. Forum, That the Ld. Advocate of the respondent/original complainant has also submitted that the Insurance Company has asked certain explanations as well as documentary evidence from the complainant vide letter dated 22.08.2012 page 98 and the same points had been raised by the Insurance Company before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, but the Ld. District Forum, has dealt with all the points or defence of the Insurance Company one by one considering evidence on record. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, has also relied upon the said findings recorded by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(Main), for allowing the complaint. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, has also submitted that as per the Insurance monthly statement page 76 of Jaydeep Cotton Fibers Pvt. Ltd. goods purchased from M/s. Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. by the complainant is to be transported from Yavatmal to Panvel in the truck No. MH31-CB-4861 of the Gautam Carrier vide L.R No. 141 dated 25.08.2011. That it is also shown that the goods is to be transported from Yavatmal to Panvel Mumbai. So, there is no mismatch between the LR of Gautam Carrier as well as invoice of Rana Denim Pvt.
K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 5 of 12Ltd. and he has also submitted that Panvel is also situated in Mumbai as well as Nava Sheva which is a port is also situated in Panvel Therefore, there is no mismatch about destination of the goods in the invoice, lorry receipt as well as police papers as stated in the latter dated 22.08.2012 of the Insurance Company. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, has also submitted that in the tax invoice of the Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. the date is shown as 26.08.2011 wherein in the lorry receipt of Gautam Carrier dated is mentioned as 25.08.2011 but i.e. no mismatch about the purchase of Cotton Bales by the complainant from M/s. Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. because after the dispatch of goods by carrier the tax invoice is prepared by the company and there is no any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy to that effect that lorry receipt and the tax invoice must be of the same date that shows that the Insurance Company raised unnecessary quarries in the letter dated 22.08.2012. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, has also submitted that the Gautam Carrier, which is transporter of the goods and the owner of the truck has already lodged the complaint regarding the incident of missing goods. So, there is no any requirement of law to file another complaint by the complainant for the same incident. Therefore, query raised in the letter dated 22.08.2012 also not just and proper.
7. That Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya has further, submitted that the complainant has issued notice by registered post AD as on 23.09.2011 to M/s. Gautam Carrier and claim Rs. 17,35,765/- for the loss caused to him. This notice is unsigned but the Gautam Carrier replied the said notice as on 26.09.2011 to the complainant and copy thereof is produced as on page 44 and 45 and therefore, merely the notice dated 23.09.2011 is unsigned it cannot be believe that the complainant had not sent the said notice to the Gautam Carrier and therefore, the complainant has followed the due procedure for the claim against the carrier as per the act that the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, has also submitted that the complainant has sent all the necessary/required documents to the surveyor of the Insurance Company and on the basis of the same surveyor has assessed the loss caused to the complainant and the surveyor report is on page 38 to 40 and as per the surveyor report the complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 15,77,968/-. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the Policy the complainant is also entitled to get 10% extra by way of "CIF". So, the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 1,57,796/- 10% of 15,77,968/- so, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 17,35,764/-
K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 6 of 12from the opponent Insurance Company for the loss caused to him. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, that though the Insurance Company has received survey report as on 07.08.2012 the Insurance Company has not settled the claim within the time specified by the IRDA Regulation and therefore, Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service not only that complainant is also entitled to get 9% interest from the date of submission of the survey report to the Insurance Company as per the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in II (2022) CPJ 386 (NC) and accordingly Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, has finally submitted to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to upheld the impugned judgement and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (Main).
8. I have considered the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh on behalf of the Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. V. P. Nanavaty, and I have also considered the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate Mr. R. V. Sakariya, on behalf of the respondent/original complainant. That I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(Main), passed in forum case No. 312/2013 dated 30.12.2013 and the documentary evidence produced by the parties before the Ld. District Forum. That looking to the complaint as well as written statement filed by the Insurance Company there is no dispute between the complainant and opponent that complainant had taken Insurance Policy as stated in the complaint from the opponent Insurance Company and the said fact is also established by the complainant and the copy thereof is produced at page 32 and 33. That it is also not disputed that the complainant had purchased Cotton Bales worth of Rs. 15,77,968/- from M/s Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. as per the tax invoice dated 26.11.2011 That it is also not in dispute between the parties that for transportation of said goods from Yavatmal to complainant place at Panvel Mumbai, the Gautam Carrier was book as a Carrier and Gautam Carrier loaded the said goods on 25.08.2011 in the truck bearing registration No. MH31-CB-4861.
9. That as per the facts stated in the complaint the goods purchased by complainant from Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. Send through Gautam Carrier did not reach in the Mumbai in the truck of Gautam Carriers and therefore, the Gautam Carrier lodged the Police complaint and informed the complainant about the missing of the truck as well as goods of the K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 7 of 12 complainant and therefore, the complainant lodged the claim vide claim form dated 16.03.2012 produced at page 41 to the opponent Insurance Company. That it is the case of the complainant that though this complaint has produced necessary documents to the surveyor of the Insurance Company and surveyor has submitted report to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not settled the claim of the complainant and therefore, complainant filed the complaint against the Insurance Company.
10. That it is the case of the Insurance Company that after receipt of the claim of the complainant Insurance Company has appointed surveyor V. M. Ketkar, for assessment of the loss of the complainant but in order to settled the claim of the complainant Insurance Company has ask number of documents from the insured and also raised certain queries and explanation as per letter dated 22.08.2012 page 98. That the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, has dealt with all the queries and explanations sought from the complainant by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 22.08.2012 and other defence raised by the Insurance Company in their written statement and finally the Ld. District Forum, arrived at the conclusion that the Insurance Company has not settled the claim of the complainant in due course of time as per the IRDA regulation and that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and therefore, the Ld. District Forum, allow the complaint filed by the complainant vide order dated 30.12.2013 and being aggrieved by the said order the Insurance Company has filed this present appeal.
11. Therefore, this State Commission has to decide as to whether impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(Main), in forum case No. 312/2013 dated 30.12.2013 including the finding thereof are erroneous and perverse or the said judgment is just and proper in order to decide the same this Commission has to go through the documentary evidence produced by the parties before the forum, and finding recorded by the Ld. Forum, in the impugned judgment.
12. That it is the defence of the Insurance Company or query raised in the letter dated 22.08.2012 that though the date of incident of the loss of the goods of the complainant is on 25.08.2011 the complainant had not informed within time about the incident to the Insurance Company and therefore, the claim of the complaint is not genuine but looking to the K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 8 of 12 findings recorded by the Ld. District Forum, on that point and looking to the record of the case it appears that as per the survey report the Gautam Carriers informed the complainant about the alleged loss as on 05.09.2011 and in turn as on 08.09.2011 the complainant informed the Insurance Company. So, within very short time the complainant informed the Insurance Company about the alleged incident of loss of goods so, there is no any delay on the part of the insured regarding the intimation of the alleged incident to the Insurance Company and there is also no any condition or terms and condition that the complainant has to infirmed the loss of goods or inform the incident in question without any undue delay. So, there is no delay on the part of the insured regarding the intimation of the loss of goods to Insurance Company. That the Insurance Company has also raised queries that as per the tax invoice of the Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. page 69 the complainant purchase the goods as on 26.08.2011 whereas in the lorry receipt of the Gautam Carrier the date is mentioned as on 25.08.2011 so, there is a variance regarding the purchase of goods in the lorry receipt as well as tax invoice but that query is not just and proper because as per the explanation offered by the complainant in the cross-examination of Exh. 15 the complainant has categorically stated that on 25.08.2011 the goods were uploaded in the truck as per the weigh bridge slip. And thereafter, tax invoice is issued as on 26.08.2011 by the Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. so, there is no variance regarding the loading of goods or purchasing of goods in lorry receipt as well as in the tax invoice as per the query raised by the Insurance Company. That the Insurance Company has also raised query in the letter dated 22.08.2012 that in the tax invoice of Rana Denim Pvt. Ltd. the designation is shown as Panvel and in the lorry receipt of Gautam Carrier destination is shown as panvel and in Police papers the destination is shown as Nava Shewa. So, there is also a variance regarding destination in the tax invoice as well as lorry receipt and Police Papers and this is a violation of policy but that query of Insurtance Company is not just and proper because in Nava Shewa is the port situated in the Panvel Mumbai, and as per the tax invoice and lorry receipt the place of destination is shown Panvel Mumbai. So, there is no variance regarding destination as alleged by the Insurance Company in the letter dated 22.08.2012.
13. That the Insurance Company has also asked the complainant vide letter dated 22.08.2012 that why the complainant has not filed the complaint regarding the incident in question but when the Gautam Carrier had lodged the complaint about the incident in question immediately in the K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 9 of 12 concern police station who is the owner of the truck as well as the goods of the complainant then there is no requirement of law to file the second complaint by the complainant about the same incident. And therefore, the said query is raised by the Insurance Company is also not just and proper that the Insurance Company has also raise query and also sought explanation from the complainant that the notice sent to carrier by Registered AD by the complainant is unsigned and registered AD acknowledgment slip is not submitted but if we perused the page 46 of the paper book it is transpired that on 23.09.2011 Jaydeep Cotton Fiber Pvt. Ltd. had issued notice to M/s. Gautam Carriers claiming Rs. 17,35,765/- and accordingly followed the procedures for claim against the carriers. That it is true that the said notice is unsigned but said notice is received by the Gautam Carrier and Gautam Carrier also replied the said notice as on 26.09.2011 to the complainant which is produced as on page 44 and 45. So, when the Gautam Carrier replied the notice of the complainant vide letter dated 26.09.2011there is no any question to raise doubt regarding sending of notice by the complainant to the Gautam Carriers and therefore, the query raised by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 22.08.2012 regarding notice of the carrier is also not just and proper. That the Insurance Company has also raised query in the letter dated 22.08.2012 that the complainant has not produced the claim bill and only submitted papers but along with claim form, the complainant has sent the tax invoice, lorry receipt and other documentary evidence to the surveyor as well as Insurance Company as stated in the complaint and complainant has also produced the said document before the Ld. District Forum, Rajkot(Main), and on the basis of the said document the surveyor of the Insurance Company has made assessment of the loss and he has also asses the loss caused to the complainant in his survey report therefore, it cannot be believe that in spite of numerous reminders sent by the Insurance Company to the complainant for providing necessary document complainant has not provided the necessary document for the settlement of his claim.
14. That the Insurance Company has also ask the English Translation of the police paper which are in the Marathi language from the complainant but there is no any condition in the Policy that the insured has to supply the English translation of the Police papers to the Insurance Company and it is for the Insurance Company to get the said police papers of Marathi language in to English. So, looking to the above sated facts as well as looking to the finding recorded by the Ld. District Forum, for allowing the K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 10 of 12 complaint of the complainant the complainant has provided all the necessary documents to the surveyor as well as Insurance Company for settlement of his claim and the surveyor has also submitted his report as on 07.08.2012 in the Insurance Company assessing the loss of the complainant. Thereafter, there is no any reason for the Insurance Company to write a letter dated 22.08.2012 to the complainant and asking certain queries and explanation as well as documentary evidence but it appears that the writing of this letter dated 22.08.2012 to the complainant on the part of the Insurance Company is nothing but to delay the settlement of the claim of the complainant. That as per the IRDA regulation after receipt of the survey report the Insurance Company has to settled the claim of the complainant within the time prescribed in the IRDA regulation. Here in this case though the complainant has received survey report as on 07.08.2012 the Insurance Company has not settled the claim for the period of more then one year and therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint in the month of July 2013 before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, against the Insurance Company and this attitude and approach of the Insurance Company amounts to the deficiency in the service on the part of the Insurance Company and accordingly the Ld. Forum has also rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and accordingly I do not find any illegality or perverseness in the finding recorded by the Ld. District Forum, while allowing the complaint.
15. That as per the survey report dated 07.08.2012 page 37 to 40 the surveyor has assess the loss of the complainant of Rs. 15,77,968/- (Fifteen Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand and Nine Hundred Sixty Eight only) and as per the Policy the complainant entitled to get 10% extra CIF which is Rs. 1,57,796/- so, in all complainant is entitled to get Rs. 17,35,764/- from the opponent Insurance Company with the interest there on. That the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company has alternatively submitted that complainant is not entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation since he had committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy and complainant is only entitled to get Rs. 17,35,764/- and at the most the claim of the complainant can be settled on the non standard basis but I do not agree with this submission of the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company because when there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company that is not settling the claim for a long time after receipt of his survey report the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 17,35,764/- and along with the interest K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 11 of 12 at the rate of 9% as granted by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, and my view is also fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in II (2022) CPJ 386 and accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed in toto and the impugned judgement and order passed by the Ld. Forum, requires to be confirmed in this appeal. Hence I passed the following final order.
ORDER
1. The appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot(Main), in forum case No. 312/13 dated 30.12.2013 is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of Appeal No.796 of 2014, Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with occurred interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
5. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Forum, Rajkot(Main), for taking necessary action.
6. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 31st March 2023.
[I. D. Patel] Judicial Member.
K.Navlakha A/14/796 Page 12 of 12