State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Chand Devi vs Riico & Anr. on 5 March, 2009
Appeal No.375/04 Mustak Khan V. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors. Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri D.M.Mathur,counsel for the appellant Shri Virendra Saraswat,counsel for the respondents Date of judgement: 5.3.2009 This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 20.1.04 passed by the District Forum, Camp Jaipur in complaint no.162/03,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was allowed in the manner that the respondents insurance company was directed to pay 75% amount of Rs.92856/-, that comes to Rs.68,642/- with interest @ 9% p.a and further to pay Rs.1000/- as amount of cost.
It arises in the following circusmtances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 26.5.98 interalia stating that he has got his commander jeep bearing no.RJ.18.C.1211 insured with the respondents insurance company for the period 25.6.97 to 24.6.98 and the said jeep had met with an accident on 21.7.97 and jeep had damaged and the damage was to the tune of Rs.1,01,000/-. Since the amount was not paid, therefore,the present the 2 present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 22.2.99 and in the reply same pleas were taken which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 31.3.05 and the case of the respondents insurance company was that since at the time of accident many persons were sitting in the jeep and the same was being used for commercial purposes though the vehicle which was insured was for private use,therefore,there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and claim was not settled and it was further stated that the surveyor appointed by the respondents insurance company,Shri Dhamija had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.92856/- and not as claimed by the complainant appellant and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 20.1.04,had allowed the complaint taking into consideration that since the vehicle in question was being used for hire purposes,therefore,the claim was treated as sub standard and from the amount of Rs.92856/-as assessed by the surveyor, only 75% amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant appellant by the respondents insurance company.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that treating the claim as sub standard was not justified as the vehicle in question was not being used for hire purposes and thus appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
3We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On file,there is an investigation report dated 3.2.98 prepared by Shri J.S.Gambhir,the investigator appointed by the respondents insurance company who after recording the statements of the witnessess that the jeep in question had met with an accident on 21.7.97 and many persons of different communities were in the jeep and the driver Mishri Khan had died in the accident and the jeep was going from Jaipur to Chaksu and the accident was caused by the tanker and 5 persons had died due to that accident and thus at the time of accident,the jeep was being used for commercial purposes or taxi.
When this being the position,it could easily be said that no doubt,the accident was caused by the tanker but the vehicle in question was being used for hire purposes and by doing so,the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and if for that the claim was treated as sub standard,no illegality was committed by the District Forum in passing the impugned order.
For reasons as stated above,we see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the District Forum as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,illegality or perversity and they are liable to be confirmed one and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The result is that this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed.
Member President Appeal No.1609/08 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Appellant V.
1.Kishan Lal
2.Vijaypura Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
3.Chittorgarh Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. Respondents Before:
Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member Shri Jitendra Mitruka,counsel for the appellant Shri Manish Mathur,counsel for the respondents Date of judgement: 5.3.2009 This appeal has been filed by the appellant which was op no.3 against the order dated 9.7.08 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh in complaint no.56/08,by which the complaint of the complainant res.no.1 was allowed against the appellant in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- the amount of the policy with interest @ 9% p.a and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony.
It may be stated here that the complainant res.no.1 had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company as well as res.no.2 & 2 3, before the District Forum,Chittorgarh on 21.1.08 interalia stating that his brother Shobha Lal,now deceased was insured with the appellant insurance company with the Member of Kisan Credit cCard Scheme of res.no.2 & 3 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the deceased had died on 19.2.06 and thereafter a claim was preferred but since at the time of accident,the deceased was not having a licence,therefore,the claim was not payable and complaint was filed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 30.8.07 had allowed the complaint as stated above.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.
In this appeal,the only contention raised on behalfof the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that when the insured amount had been ordered to be paid with interest,further awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony was not justified and to that extent,appeal be allowed.
In our considered opinion,looking to all facts and circusmtances of the case since the claim was repudiated in an arbitrary manner and since the complainant res.no.1 had to file a complaint before the District Forum and further to face the appeal before this Commission,therefore,if a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded as amount of compensation in place of Rs.25,000/-,that would meet the ends of justice.
For reasons as stated above, this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed in the manner that in respect of the 3 amount of compensation for mental agony of Rs.25,000/-, the appellant would pay only a sum of Rs.10,000/- in place of Rs.25,000/- and to that extent,impugned order dated 9.7.08 passed by the District Forum,Chittorgarh be treated as modified. Rest order is maintained.
Member President
Appeal No.1664/08
Smt.Chand
Devi Khetan V. RIICO & anr.
Before:
Mr.Justice
Sunil Kumar Garg-President
Mrs.Vimla
Sethiya-Member
Shri
R.G.Gupta,counsel for the appellant
Shri
Chandra Shekhar,counsel for the respondents Date of judgement: 5.3.2009 This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 6.8.08 passed by the District Forum,Camp Jaipur in complaint no.123/08(old no.969/06),by which the complaint was dismissed interalia holding that the dispute between the parties was not a consumer dispute.
It arises in the following circusmtances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 10.1.06 interalia stating that she had applied for allotment of an industrial plot of 4000sqm on 21.3.05 enclosing a draft of Rs.93,600/-.It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter further demand was raised and Rs.35,000/- were further deposited and further a sum of Rs.64686/- were demanded which was deposited by the complainant appellant,but the allotment of the plot was not made and for the deficiency the complaint was filed praying that the plot no.E.23 situated in industrial area be 2 allotted to the complainant appellant.
A reply was filed by the respondents on 9.10.07 and the case of the respondents was that her allotment letter was cancelled as the amount in question was not deposited by the complainant appellant in time and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 6.8.98 had dismissed the complaint interalia holding that the present dispute between the parties was not a consumer dispute.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that in cases where the party applies for industrial plot and had deposited some amount and had fulfiled some conditions or ready to fulfil the remaining conditions and if possession is not given,there would be a consumer dispute and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed reliaing of appellatte judgement which was passed in appeal no.1458/07 dated 19.3.08,were wrong one,hence appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In our considered opinion,the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the dispute between the parties was not a consumer 3 dispute,could not be sustained as the present dispute for all purposes should be treated as a consumer dispute between the parties as the question between the parties was that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in not allotting the plot or not. Since the impugned order was not passed on merits,therefore,the matter is to be remanded back to the District Forum holding the present dispute between the parties is a consumer dispute.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is allowed,impugned order dated 6.8.08 passed by the District Forum,Camp Jaipur is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum-II,Jaipur to be decided afresh on merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 9.4.09.
Member President