National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. And ... vs Sukhdev Singh Gill And Ors. on 21 April, 2006
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 29.3.2004 passed in First Appeal No. 231 of 2002, by the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, National Insurance Company Ltd. was dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Shimla and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 59,500 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 6.11.2001 till realization and costs of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner is here.
2. Brief facts of the case are :
The truck of the respondent was insured with the petitioner in the name of Mrs. Chand Kaur Gill for the period 3.3.1991 to 2.3.1992. Subsequently, Mrs. Chand Kaur Gill died and her legal heirs have been impleaded. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.5.1991. Accordingly, the petitioner was intimated, who deputed a spot Surveyor and thereafter a final Surveyor. The final Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 59,500 on total loss basis. It is contended by the petitioner that vide letter dated 27.12.1991 documents including the copy of the FIR were required to be submitted. A reminder for the same was sent on 11.3.1992 and the respondents did not provide the information as required. After final reminder dated 31.3.1992 the case was closed according to them.
3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have filed the complaint after a period of 7 years and that limitation cannot be extended arbitrarily. The second issue is regarding the driving licence. In the FIR, initially it was mentioned that the vehicle was being driven by one Mr. Kulwant Singh who did not have valid driving licence.
4. As against this learned Counsel for the respondents argued on the ground of limitation and relied on the reminder given by the petitioner dated 31.3.1992 which categorically states as under:
You are advised to deposit the above said documents in our Branch Office within fifteen (15) days from the date of issue of this letter, otherwise we shall be closing the file as 'No claim'.
No further correspondence will be entertained thereafter.
5. This letter cannot be accepted as a repudiation letter. It is stated that respondent No. 1 met the Branch Manager in his office at Badri Nagar in August 1995 and he was told that the claim would be paid in due course. He further visited the office on December 1995 and followed with a letter dated 25.6.1996. Thereafter letters were written on 29.5.1997, 30.8.1997, 5.5.1998, 2.3.1999 and 2.3.1999 for which petitioner has not responded to. Respondent No. 1 approached Branch Manager in July 1999, who had assured that he would do the needful by approaching concerned authority but did not proceed further in the matter. On 10.11.1999, the son of Smt. Chand Kaur Gill met the Branch Manager and delivered the letter personally to which Branch Manager replied on 17.11.1999 that the said claim has been filed as 'No Claim' on 31.3.1992 itself.
6. As per the second ground regarding the driving licence, necessary documents have been filed and an affidavit of the complainant stated that the vehicle was being driven by Ravinder Singh who had valid driving licence and that Kulwant Singh, who was also a driver, was only travelling in the vehicle and not driving at the time of accident. Both these grounds were appreciated by the State Commission,
7. We perused the record and heard the parties. A mere letter of reminder by the petitioner stating that claim would be considered to be 'No claim' can not be acceptable as final repudiation. Insurance Company ought to have sent a letter repudiating the claim for not supplying the documents asked for. In any case, non-supply of FIR would hardly be a ground for repudiating the claim. Hence, on this aspect the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
8. As regards the question of licence, we rely on the affidavit filed by the complainant that Ravinder Singh who had a valid driving licence was driving the vehicle. Based on the Survey report of the petitioner Rs. 59,500 has been awarded with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 16.11.2000 till the actual payment is made along with costs of Rs. 1,000. State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum.
9. In our view, respondents have been put to loss for the delay caused by the petitioner raising issues of limitation and further not replying to the letters of the respondents and thus years have passed and no relief has been given to the respondents, District Forum and State Commission have given well reasoned orders and there is no reason for us to interfere with the same.
10. In view of the above discussion, we affirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition with costs of Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the respondents by the petitioner within 4 weeks.