National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Durga Carriers (P) Ltd. on 7 November, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3085 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 15.2.2012 in Appeal No.598 of 2011 of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office-I, 18, Barakhamba Road, Kanchenjunga Bldg. 8th Floor, New Delhi-110001 .Petitioner Versus M/s. Durga Carriers (P) Ltd. Through Director Shashibhushan Shukla, Lavan Road, Balobazar, Dist: Raipur Chattisgarh .....Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 07.11.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this revision petition against the order of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.598 of 2011 passed on 15.2.2012. The petition has been filed with a delay of 89 days, which is sought to be explained in an application seeking its condonation. It shows that the petitioner received a copy of the impugned order on 24.2.2012.
Thereafter, the concerned file, with recommendation to file revision petition, is shown to have moved from Divisional office Raipur to the Regional office Bhopal. From Regional office Bhopal the proposal went to the Head Office at Chennai, who approved the proposal and returned the file to Bhopal. Thereafter, Bhopal office sent it to Regional office, New Delhi. Eventually, the file was sent to the counsel of the Company on 22.5.2012. Thus, more than three months time is shown to have been consumed in this movement of the proposal within the organization from one office to other.
2. While the counsel received file with all approvals for filing of revision petition on 22.5.2012, the petition was eventually filed on 21.8.2012 i.e. after further period of three months. This time was allegedly spent on completing all necessary records of proceeding in the fora below and getting some of the documents translated into English language.
3. In our view, the explanation is nothing more than an unconvincing attempt to justify the long gap of six months between receiving the copy of the impugned order and filing of the present revision petition.
Logically speaking, all necessary documents-- including translations into English-- should have been on the record to enable the head office at Chennai to obtain legal opinion and to take a final decision on whether it was a fit case for revision or not. We therefore, do not accept that another three months would have been required to again collect the relevant documents and to get them translated.
Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.
4. Facts of the case as seen from the record are that the insured vehicle of the respondent/Complainant was forcibly snatched away by two miscreants on 30.5.2008 while travelling though Jharkhand on National Highway No.33. The first information report was filed with Jamshedpur Police on 10.6.2008 and the insurance company was informed on 16.6.2008. A complaint with the District Consumer Forum, Raipur was filed on 20.4.2011 alleging deficiency of service due to non-settlement of the claim by the OP/present revision petitioner.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the IDV of Rs.12 lakhs with 6 % interest and Rs.5000/- compensation for mental agony. The State Commission agreed with the District Forum, but with the modification that instead of the full IDV of Rs.12 lakhs, the Insurance Company shall pay only 75% thereof i.e. Rs.9 lakhs.
6. We have carefully considered the records before us and have heard Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner/United India Insurance Company. Learned counsel argued that the delay was due to non-submission of the original document of the vehicle, which according to the Complainant had been stolen along with the vehicle. The vehicle had eventually remained untraced by the Police. However, learned counsel could not explain why the insurance company could not decide the claim even after copy of the final police report was made available by the Complainant to the Insurance Company.
7. In the revision petition, it is alleged that the State Commission should have dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay in informing the insurance company. In this behalf, a reference is made to the decision of this Commission in New Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane (FA No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009). In this case the delay of 9 days in reporting the theft to the insurer was considered adequate justification for repudiation of the claim, on the ground that it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate the alleged theft and to trace the stolen vehicle. The facts in the present case are different in as much as the insurance company had not taken a view at all and the claim was still pending when the complaint was filed. Secondly, the evidence led before the fora below shows that the delay was due to the reluctance of Jamshedpur Police to accept the FIR. The Insurance Company was informed within the few days after the FIR was accepted by the local police. Therefore, the case of the revision petitioner derives no support from the decision cited above.
8. The revision petition also raises the issue of non-submission of original documents by the Complainant, for consideration of his claim under the policy. This is yet another matter on which a clear finding has been given. The State Commission has observed that the registration certificate, insurance policy in the original and the key of the vehicle, demanded by the insurance company, could not be given by the Complainant alleging that they were taken away by the miscreants when they snatched the vehicle.
However, the State Commission has noted that:-
But ultimately, it appears that some documents, may be copies of the original were provided and that is why the Insurance Company vide letter dated 07.05.2009 Annexure OP-11 has informed the Surveyor Shri Shakil Ahmad that the Insurance Company was forwarding to him the required papers i.e. Xerox of claim form, FIR, Policy (current & previous), cover note, R.C. Permit, paper cutting etc. Thus, ultimately necessary papers were made available, may be in the form of copies of original, but on the basis of those documents, the Investigator was a position to conduct the investigation and to report the Insurance Company , as to whether the incident of theft of vehicle was a genuine incident or was a fake story, but no such efforts were done by the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company.
9. The details examined above would therefore reveal that neither the revision petition nor the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been able to point out any substantive error in the impugned order.
In our view, the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.598 of 2011 does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is consequently dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as merit. No order as to costs.
.Sd/-
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S./-