National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Devaki V.K. & 4 Ors. vs Divisional Manager, Oriental ... on 22 July, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 31/03/2015 in Appeal No. 439/2013 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. DEVAKI V.K. & 4 ORS. W/O K. NANU BANANA MARCHANT, IRITTY, KANNUR KERALA 2. JAYARAJAN K. S/O NANU BANANA MARCHANT, IRITTY, KANNUR KERALA 3. SOBHA K D/O K. NANU BANANA MARCHANT, IRITTY, KANNUR KERALA 4. PRASANTH K. S/O K. NANU BANANA MARCHANT, IRITTY, KANNUR KERALA 5. PRASEETHA K. D/O K. NANU BANANA MARCHANT, IRITTY, KANNUR KERALA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CITY BRANCH OFFICE, RAZ BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH BAZAR,KANNUR-2 KERALA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr Bhushan Oza, Advocate with Mr K K Sudheesh, Advocate For the Respondent : MR. ABHISHEK KUMAR Dated : 22 Jul 2020 ORDER The present revision has been filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2015 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 439 of 2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner/ complainant is that the vehicle was stolen during the currency of the policy given by the respondent/ opposite party. However, after about a year, the vehicle was recovered by the police and has also submitted a final report clearly indicating that the chassis and engine numbers of the recovered vehicle were the same as those of the stolen vehicle. This report was filed before the concerned Magistrate. Based on this report, the insurance company did not indemnify the loss. The petitioner/ complainant then filed a Consumer Complaint no. 223 of 2001 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur, Kerala ('the District Forum').
4. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle had been recovered and, therefore, no payment becomes due. The District Forum appointed a local commissioner and the local commissioner/ Motor Vehicle Inspector gave the report to the District Forum recommending that further forensic enquiry may be ordered to clearly identify the vehicle. The District Forum, on the basis of this report, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 06.02.2013 and had observed as under:
"In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.3,54,500/- with an interest @ 4% from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid. The complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.2500/- as cost of this proceeding to the complainant within one monthly from the date of the receipt of this order. Failing which the complainant shall be entitled for an interest @ 12% on accrued amount of award from the date of this order. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act."
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission being Appeal no. 439 of 2013. The State Commission vide its order dated 31.03.2015 has accepted the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Forum.
6. Hence, the present revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Local Commissioner/ Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly stated in his report that the chassis and engine numbers are different than those of the stolen vehicle. The State Commission has given more reliance on the police report and has accepted the report of the police than the report of the Local Commissioner. Learned counsel has also mentioned that the complainant is entitled to get the full IDV of the vehicle as the insurance claim because the vehicle recovered is not the vehicle of the complainant.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has stated that the State Commission has examined the issue in detail and has relied on the police report which clearly states that the chassis and engine numbers of the recovered vehicle tally with those of the stolen vehicle and as mentioned in the registration booklet. Thus, there is no doubt that the recovered vehicle is the vehicle of the complainant and in such a situation, the insurance company cannot give the claim of the total IDV, rather the insurance company can only consider the claim of the complainant if any claim is given on the repair of the vehicle after its recovery.
9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. We are of the clear opinion that the final report submitted by the police is of importance and is to be relied. The report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not clear and it has itself suggested further forensic enquiry in the matter. Thus, this report does not seem to be of much help in taking a definite view on the subject. The State Commission has rightly relied on the police report which is submitted before the Magistrate. It is not the case of the complainant that anybody has claimed the recovered vehicle. Thus, if the chassis and engine numbers and model of the recovered vehicle are the same as those of the stolen vehicle, doubt cannot be created on the identity of the vehicle. It seems that the complainant does not want to take the recovered vehicle but wants the full IDV of the insured vehicle. We have also seen the order of the State Commission which mentions that the police report has also mentioned that there is a loss of Rs.50,000/- in the vehicle and the vehicle is in a running condition. Thus, at the most, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment.
10. Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the insurance company is directed to settle the claim of the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/-( rupees fifty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment. The order be complied by the insurance company within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER