State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S Raghav Medical on 7 April, 2022
FA/233/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. VS RAGHAV MEDICAL STORE D.O.D.:07.04.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 29.04.2017
Date of hearing: 24.03.2022
Date of Decision: 07.04.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 233/2017
IN THE MATTER OF
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
D.O. No.9 1/28, 4th Floor,
Asaf Ali Road, (Near Hamdard Circle),
New Delhi-110002.
Through its Delhi Regional Office-1,
F-14, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001.
(Through: MR. A.K SONI, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
M/S RAGHAV MEDICAL STORE,
2707, MAIN BAZAR MEDICAL STORE,
SUBZI MANDI,
NEW DELHI - 110006.
(Through: KESHAV GAR, Advocate)
... Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 5
FA/233/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. VS RAGHAV MEDICAL STORE D.O.D.:07.04.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties.
PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Forum record are:
"The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a proprietorship firm namely M/s.Raghav Medical Store. It is alleged that the complainant obtaining Motor comprehensive package (commercial) insurance policy from the O.P. which is being renewed by the O.P. every year with regard to truck bearing No.HR-B-3837. It is further alleged that the complainant obtained motor policy bearing No.215400/31/2005/1721 for the period from 14.10.2004 to 13.10.2005 from the O.P. after paying the premium of Rs.15,821/- as consideration. It is alleged that the said truck got completely burnt on 26.11.2004 near village Mokham Pura/Dudha NH-8, Distt. Kishan Garh, Rajasthan and the O.P. was duly informed and spot survey report was also conducted on 19.12.2004. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged a claim to the O.P. to the O.P for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. It is alleged that the claim in respect of fire on 26.11.2004 has been wrongfully and illegally repudiated by the O.P. vide their letter dated 17.11.2006 after an inordinate delay of over 2 years from the date of loss. It is further alleged that the complainant vide letter dated 18.12.2006 requested the O.P. to process and settle the long pending claim, enclosing a copy of FIR and spot survey dated 19.12.2004. It is alleged that complainant served a legal notice dated 21.05.2007 to the O.P., who denied the liability vide reply dated 08.12.2006 DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 5 FA/233/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. VS RAGHAV MEDICAL STORE D.O.D.:07.04.2022 that the vehicle was totally damaged in the fire and cannot be repaired hence the claim should be decided on the total loss basis. On these facts complainant prays that O.P. be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.5,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed."
2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 22.02.2017, whereby it held as under:
"The controversy involved in the present case pertains to the issue as to whether the repudiation of the claim by the O.P. was justified or not. The material on record indicates that the repudiation proceeded on the premise that the complainant did not exercise reasonable care with regard to the safety of the vehicle which resulted in total loss of the vehicle by fire and as such on the basis of terms and conditions of the policy the claim was repudiated. It would not be out of place to mention here that the O.P. appointed surveyor namely Amit Kumar Shrivastava, who submitted his status report dated 17.07.2006 indicated total loss of the vehicle and assessed the value as Rs.6,34,000/- minus wreck value of Rs.1,65,000/- and total payable amount of Rs.4,69,000/-. The plea of O.P. regarding reasonable care to be taken by complainant does not hold any water because the terms and conditions as to reasonable care contended by O.P. were never supplied to the insured at the time of inception of the insurance policy. It is now well settled law that until and unless the terms and conditions of the policy as supplied to the insured, the same cannot be pressed into service by O.P. to avail payment of compensation. Also the surveyor appointed by O.P had recommended the claim to the tune of Rs.4,69,000/-. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was reduced to the total loss on account of fire which destroyed the vehicle as a whole. The IDV was Rs.5,50,000/-, therefore, deducting the salvage value to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, we are of the opinion that the O.P DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 5 FA/233/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. VS RAGHAV MEDICAL STORE D.O.D.:07.04.2022 should pay outstanding amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as value of the vehicle to the complainant. We also award of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment mental agony loss of time and litigation."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that District forum failed to consider the fact that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 23.09.2005 and thereafter, the vehicle was left unattended by the respondent for about 3 weeks, due to which the said vehicle caught fire. He further submitted that the alleged fire took place on 16.10.2005 i.e. after the expiry of the said insurance policy and the incident of fire was due to the negligence of the respondent.
4. The respondent, on the other hand, failed to file reply to the present appeal despite multiple opportunities given by this commission.
5. We have perused the Appeal, the District Forum Record and Impugned Order.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the truck caught fire on 16.10.2005 i.e. after the expiry of the said insurance policy. On perusal of record before us, we do not find any document which shows us that the incident of fire took place on 16.10.2005. Moreover, the appellant also failed to show or prove the fact that the fire was caught on the said vehicle on 16.10.2005 and not on 26.11.2004. In absence of evidence, we cannot take into consideration the bald submission of the appellant that the said vehicle caught fire on 16.10.2005.
7. Another question of consideration before us is whether the appellant was wrong in repudiating the claim of the respondent. The material on record shows that the repudiation was done by the appellant on the ground that the respondent did not exercise reasonable care with regard to the safety of the vehicle which resulted in total loss of the said DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 5 FA/233/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. VS RAGHAV MEDICAL STORE D.O.D.:07.04.2022 vehicle by fire and on the basis of terms and conditions of the said policy, the claim of the respondent was repudiated. On perusal of terms and condition of the said policy, we do not find any provision/clause mandating the respondent to remove the vehicle in question after the accident. In absence of any specific provision with respect to handling of vehicle after accident, we cannot hold that the respondent did not exercise reasonable care in the present case.
8. In the aforesaid discussion, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Forum and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Forum. Consequently, we uphold the judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Delhi.
9. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
10. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (RAJAN SHARMA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
07.04.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 5