National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Phunnu Rai on 2 December, 2002
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This Revision Petition arises out of the of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. It is not necessary for us to go deep into the matter as the mater has been gone into two times by both the fora below and both the fora have concurrently found deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 24th April, 2002 the learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated before us that the same question as arisen in this case was coming up for hearing on 30th April, 2002, i.e. First Appeal No. 129 of 2001, and that this matter may also be listed on the same date along with that appeal. Accordingly both the matters were heard and decision has been rendered in First Appeal No. 129 of 2001. Still to dispose of this Revision Petition, we deal with the facts of the case in brief which are as under:
3. The Complainant had taken a loan from Ballia Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ballia, in order to purchase a Jeep. He purchased a jeep and got it insured with the Opposite Party Insurance Company for a period of one year from 17.2.1998, on which date the valuation of the jeep was assessed at Rs. 2,34,000/- and the requisite premium was paid. It is alleged that the jeep was stolen on 15/16-1-1999 which fact was brought to the notice of the Insurance Company by preferring a claim in that respect. Since the Insurance Company did not settle the claim the Complainant approached the District Forum claiming Rs. 2,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 40,000/- on account of business loss. It is not necessary to mention here that the Insurance Company contested the matter by filing its written version. The District Forum upon hearing the matter, directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant the amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% from 20.1.1999 till the date of payment Rs. 500/- for mental agony and Rs. 200/- costs.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the Opposite Party went in appeal. The State Commission upon discussing the matter in detail, upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
5. Now, the Opposite Party has come in revision before us. Upon hearing the parties, going through the orders of the State Commission as well as the District Forum and also adverting to the policy of insurance which was filed on 13th August, 2002, we do not find it a fit case for us to interfere with the order of the State Commission in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismiss the Revision Petition, without any order as to costs.
6. While dismissing the Revision Petition we observe that the on 1st November, 2001 was stayed the order of the State Commission by directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- and further directed that recovery of the rest of the amount shall remain stayed. Since the case has been decided against the Petitioner the balance amount be paid by the Petitioner herein within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, falling which the Respondent would be free to proceed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.