National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bimla Devi on 30 November, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3111 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/09/2018 in Appeal No. 858/2017 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NATIONAL LEGAL VERTICAL & OFFICE OF GM NORTH, 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION NEW DELHI-110055 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BIMLA DEVI W/O. SHRI SUMER SINGH,R/O. HOUSE NO. 368-A, GURUGRAM HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh K Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 30 Nov 2018 ORDER
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners who were the opposite parties in the complaint against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( in short, the State Commission) which was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2018 in Appeal No.858 of 2017.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had purchased Honda Siel Car Sallon bearing registration no. DL-3CAK-2200 and insured the same with the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 18.06.2014 to 17.06.2015 vide insurance policy no. 426010311410000777 (Exhibits P2 and P3). At the time of issuance of insurance policy, the insured declared value was mentioned as Rs.10,20,000/-. The said car was stolen. Police report was filed. The police after investigation submitted its report that the car was untraceable, which report was accepted by the concerned Magistrate. The petitioners were also informed of the theft, which took place on the intervening night of October 18th / 20th, 2014. Their surveyor gave his report and fixed the liability of Rs.1,95,000/- on the ground that said vehicle was purchased only for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. They offered the said amount to the respondent which was refused by the respondent. The respondent filed the complaint before the District forum for payment of entire insured amount alongwith other benefits.
3. Parties have led their evidences before the District Forum and on the basis of evidences led by the parties, complaint was allowed and contention of the petitioners that they are liable to pay only sum of Rs.1,95,000/- was rejected. This order was impugned by the petitioners before the State Commission. Their main contention has been that their liability is restricted only to the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- since it is the amount paid by the respondent towards the purchase of said vehicle. The contention raised by the complainant before the District Forum and State Commission in this regard was that this amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was paid by cheque and amount of Rs.14,50,000/- was paid by cash at the time of purchase of vehicle.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the State Commission held that petitioners are liable to pay the total insured declared value and their plea that vehicle was purchased only for Rs.1,95,000/- was rejected.
5. While assailing the impugned order, the petitioners have again raised similar issue that their liability to pay under the insurance policy is confined only to the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- which was the value of the vehicle and paid by the complainant towards the cost of the vehicle and that respondent has wrongly declared the value of vehicle at Rs.10,20,000/- at the time of insuring the vehicle. As regards, the finding of fact regarding cost of vehicle, the State Commission has given the following findings:
"15. As per discussions above in detail, certainly findings cannot be given that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle purchased by the complainant was only an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. The investigator has also received information from Sumer Singh that the vehicle was purchased on payment of Rs.14,50,000/-. Moreover, when the insurance policy was being provided the officers as well as the agents of the Insurance Company were duty bound to get correct information regarding price of the vehicle. The officers of the Insurance Company were also of the view that market sale price of the vehicle at the time of providing the insurance policy was Rs.10,20,000/-. The Insured Declared Value was assessed by the officers of the Insurance Company and not by the complainant. The officers of the Insurance Company did not feel any problem in mentioning the total insured declared value as Rs.10,20,000/- at the time of providing the insurance policy because the extra premium amount received was likely to increase the income and business of the Insurance Company. The officers of the Insurance Company became serious regarding insured declared value of the vehicle only when the vehicle was stolen and the Insurance Company was being compelled to make payment of the total insured declared value as Rs.10,20,000/-. Facing this situation, the Insurance Company thought it proper and profitable to take plea that the market price of the vehicle at the time of providing the Insurance Policy was only Rs.1,95,000/-. It is also not mentioned as to whether any disciplinary action has been taken against those particular officers and officials."
6. As regards the contentions and argument of counsel for the petitioners that insured declared value of Rs.10,20,000/- has been mistakenly mentioned in the insurance policy, the State Commission has given the following findings:
"16. In the letter dated November 26t, 2015 Exhibit R-7 the Insurance Company has mentioned in clear words that the total insured declared value of the vehicle was captioned as Rs.10,20,000/- due to mistake. The opposite parties have nowhere mentioned that due to mistake of which particular officer or official of the Insurance Company, the IDV of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.10,20,000/-. It is not made clear that what step the Insurance Company has taken against any such officer or official. Record does not show that the Insurance Company even had obtained explanation of the officers or officials who committed this mistake. In these circumstances, we feel it was the decision of the competent officers of the Insurance Company that the total Insured Declared Value of the vehicle should be mentioned as Rs.10,20,000/- and the complainant cannot be blamed for it."
7. This Commission does not find any reason to disagree with the said findings of the State Commission. Also, no illegality, infirmity or perversity in these findings has been shown. After discussing the case law relied upon by the petitioners, in support of their case before the State Commission, the State Commission has giving its findings as under:
"17. Resultantly, findings are given that the total insured declared value of the vehicle at the time of obtaining the insurance policy was Rs.10,20,000/- and the complainant is entitled for payment of the above mentioned amount. On this point of controversy learned counsel for the complainant placed his reliance upon two decisions of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case law titled as United India Insurance Company Limited versus Ram Dittu Bhardwaj and another, 2016(4) Law Herald (SC) 3133 and United India Insurance Company Limited and others versus Manjeet Kaur and others, 2016(1) C.P.R. 291. We have closely perused the above cited case laws. Cited case laws above support the version of the complainant. As per facts of case law referred above United India Insurance Company Limited and others versus Manjeet Kaur and others (Supra), it was provided in the insurance policy that insured declared value shall be treated as market value throughout the policy period without any further depreciation. In that case the District Forum and the State Commission had made a deduction of 15% from the insured declared value of the vehicle. Similarly, in case law referred above United India Insurance Company Limited versus Ram Dittu Bhardwaj and another (Supra), in a case of theft of vehicle findings were that that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claimant with an amount equivalent to the insured declared value. It was a case of total loss. In that case findings were given that direction of the State Commission to deduct 5% of the insured declared value on account of depreciation is not sustainable."
8. The State Commission has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners that their liability is confined to Rs.1,95,000/-. The law as discussed clearly envisages that it is the insured amount on which premium has been taken and which determines the liability of the insurer.
9. The jurisdiction of National Commission in the revision petitions is restricted. The National Commission can interfere in the findings only when there is wrong exercise of the jurisdiction or there is any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It has been so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 as under:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.
10. Since none of the above exists, no ground for interference in the impugned order has been made out. The present revision petition has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER