State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Ins Co Ltd vs Samirkumar J Shah on 18 September, 2020
1
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,
GUJARAT STAGE AT AHMEDABAD.
Appeal No.616 of 2016.
United India Insuernce Company Limited
2nd Floor, J.B. Chambers, ST Road
Post Idar, Ta. Idar,
Dist. Sabarkantha ... Appellant
Vs.
Samirkumar Jayantilal Shah
Shreenagar Road No. 1Nr. Tejas Café
Post Idar, Ta.Idar,
District Sabarkantha. .. Respondent
Shri R. P. Raval learned advocate for the Appellant
Shri V. M. Pancholi learned advocate for the respondent.
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
Order by Shri M. J. Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum, Sabarkantha in Complaint no. 300 of 2015 dated 2-5-2016 by which the complaint was allowed, the appellant/original opponent has filed present appeal against the respondent /original complainant. The parties will be referred to as per their original nomenclature for the sake convenience.
2. To dispose of this appeal, few relevant facts are required to be mentioned : It is the case of the complainant had purchased Maruti Van and insured with the opponent insurance company. Said insurance policy was effective from 24-5-2014 to 23-5-2015. The risk of the insurance of the said van was covered of Rs. 50,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that his Van was stolen on 31-8-2014 from Ahmedabad at 1.30 PM. The complainant 2 informed the Naranpura Police station about the theft of his Van. It is further case of the complainant that Police station demanded all the papers from the complainant but he had not provided. He asked for duplicate papers from the RTO. He handed over all the legal papers of the Van to the Naranpura Police station. The Police station lodged complaint no. 14-9-2014. It is further case of the complainant that the opponent insurance company was informed through his agent Mr. Tarunbhai Mehta by a letter dated 2-9- 2014. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a claim with the opponent insurance company will all papers. But, the opponent insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of delayed intimation to the opponent insurance company. Therefore, the opponent insurance company has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before the learned District forum.
3. After hearing the learned advocates for both sides, the learned District forum was pleased to allow the complaint of the complainant.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned District forum, present appeal is filed by the opponent insurance company challenging the order of the learned District Forum before the State Commission.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Raval for the insurance company has submitted before me that the order passed by the learned District forum is illegal, unjust, improper and contrary to the provisions of law. The opponent insurance company has not committed deficiency in service. It is further argued by learned advocate Mr. Raval that the learned District forum has not appreciated and considered the documents on record. It is further argued that delay was caused in informing the Police 3 station and the opponent insurance company. Delay caused in intimating the insurance company is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, on the ground of delay, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent insurance company. Hence, the appeal be allowed the order of the learned district forum needs to be quashed and set aside.
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pancholi for the complainant. He has argued that the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is just, legal and proper. There is a deficiency in service on the part of the opponent insurance company. The learned District Forum has appreciated and considered all the documents and evidence adduced on record. The order of the learned District forum need not be interfered and be confirmed.
7. I have gone through the case papers of the case. I have gone through the judgment and order of the learned District forum. . On going through the records of the case I found that the theft of the vehicle is genuine one and therefore, only the police complaint is filed not within the time, The claim cannot be repudiation on technical ground of delay. It would be just and proper to meet with the end of justice, if on non standard basis, 75% of the ordered amount is awarded to the complainant. Therefore, the order of the learned District forum needs to be interfered and modified as under.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following final order is passed.
ORDER
i) Appeal No. 616 of 2014 is partly allowed.
ii) The order dated 2-5-2016 passed by the learned District Forum, Sabarkantha in complaint No. 300 of 2015 is 4 modified and the appellant insurance company is directed to pay 75% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 37,500//-( Rupees Thirty seven thousand five hundred only ) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the complaint till its realization.
iii) There is no order with regard to interest and costs of this litigation,.
iv) Rest of the order remains unchanged. v) The appellant shall apply to the Account Department with
all details with C.M.A/APPEAL NO. with xerox copy of the Receipt to take refund of the deposited amount in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay the amount deposited with the State Commission by the order of the Commission in the CMA/APPEAL with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
vi) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced in the open court today on September 2020.
( M.J.Mehta ) Judicial Member .
5