State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rikhiram Chandrakar vs National Insurance Company Limited & ... on 14 January, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/400
Instituted on : 30.07.2012
Rikhiram Chandrakar, S/o Shri Dayalu Chandrakar,
R/o : Village - Godpali, Post - Nartora, Police Station
- Pithora, Tehsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) .... Appellant.
Vs
01. National Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Floor above Central Bank,
Beside Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road,
Raipur (C.G.)
02. Magma Fincorp,
Through : Branch Manager,
Maruti Business Park, First Floor,
Beside Dhuppad Petrol Pump, G.E. Road,
Raipur (C.G.)
03. National Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office XV,
National Insurance Building - 8,
India Exchange Place, First Floor,
Kolkata - 700001 .... Respondents.
PRESENT :
HONʹBLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri V.K. Bajpai, for respondent Nos.1 & 3. Shri Rakesh Puri, for respondent No.2.
// {PAGE } // ORDER (ORAL) DATED : 14/01/2013 PER :‐ HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against order dated 30.06.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.152/2011, whereby the complaint alleging deficiency in service against respondent Nos.1 & 3/Insurance Company and seeking compensation on account of loss to the insured tractor, in a road accident, to the tune of Rs.53,350/‐ along with interest and compensation for mental agony, was dismissed on the ground that complainant, has failed to establish that insured vehicle suffered damages in any accident.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that tractor bearing registration No.C.G.06/E‐0958, was insured for the period between 02.07.2010 to 01.07.2011 by the respondent Nos.1 & 3/Insurance Company, which was having tie‐up with respondent No.2. The said tractor suffered road accident during subsistence of the insurance period and therefore, a claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company. On the repairing of the vehicle Rs.53,350/‐, has been // {PAGE } // spent by the complainant, which was demanded by him from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company failed to pay any amount to the complainant, so the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, in reply of which the Insurance Company took a defence that desired documents were not submitted by the complainant before the Insurance Company and therefore, no amount could be paid. It was also the defence of the Insurance Company that insured vehicle was being driven by a person, who was not having valid and effective driving licence.
3. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order has found that the complainant has only filed documents regarding insurance cover to the tractor and regarding repairing of the vehicle, but nothing was brought on record to establish that damages to the vehicle, were suffered in the road accident and therefore the claim was not found sustainable.
4. We have heard arguments advanced by all parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards paragraph No.11 of the impugned order.
// {PAGE } //
6. In sub‐clause (3) of this paragraph, learned District Forum itself has held that a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who has not filed report of such survey nor any affidavit was filed by the Insurance Company to show that the Surveyor found as to which part of the insured vehicle was damaged.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when this was the finding of the District Forum, then inference was required to be drawn by it against the Insurance Company and not against the insured / complainant. It has further been submitted by him that appellant/complainant wants to file some documents, as well as his affidavit in the case, so that complete justice can be done with all parties.
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has also submitted that report of the Surveyor, was received by him after passing of the impugned order and therefore, the same could not be produced before the District Forum. It is now available with him. He has also submitted that respondent No.2, with whom, the Insurance Company was having tie‐up had demanded certain documents from the complainant, which were not provided, therefore, claim could not be settled.
// {PAGE } //
9. We have taken into consideration the submissions of learned counsels for the Insurance Company, as well as the appellant.
10. We find that when a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, then it was necessary for the Insurance Company to have brought on record report of such Surveyor, along with his affidavit, so that District Forum, can draw its conclusion in respect of the incident and in respect of loss suffered by the insured vehicle. As that document was not brought on record and is now available with the counsel for the Insurance Company, therefore, it appears necessary and in the interest of justice to allow the appeal and to remit the case back to District Forum, so that opportunity for filing documents and affidavits, may be provided to both parties once more and then the matter may be decided afresh.
11. In view of this, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to instruct the counsel for Insurance Company to produce report of the Surveyor. The appellant, as well respondent No.2, may be also provided opportunity for filing documents and affidavits, in support of their contentions. After doing this exercise, the matter be decided afresh on merits within a period of 60 days. Documents, which have been filed by the appellant, along with application under Order 41 // {PAGE } // Rule 27 of the CPC at the appellate stage, be also sent to the District Forum along with its record for considering them as evidence on behalf of the appellant. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.02.2013. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2013 /01/2013