State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Reeta Sharma on 5 November, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 06/2012 Date of Decision: 05.11.2012. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Palace Colony, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Through its Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla (H.P.) Appellant. Versus Smt. Reeta Sharma wife of Sh. Madan Lal, R/o VPO Gandalwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. Respondent. ...................................................................................................... Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Hoshiar Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Kamal Dev, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 19.10.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant, has been allowed and it has been ordered to pay a sum of `50,000/- on account of damage caused to the insured vehicle of the respondent and also to pay `2,500/- as punitive compensation and `2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Respondent owned a truck, which she got insured with the appellant. During the currency of the insurance agreement, vehicle met with an accident. Intimation of the accident was given to the appellant. Report was also lodged with the police. A surveyor was deputed by the appellant to assess the loss. Though, the accident had taken place on 21.12.2007, yet the claim had not been settled till the filing of the complaint, i.e. 16.06.2010. Respondent, therefore, approached the learned District Forum, with a prayer to direct the appellant to pay a sum of `50,000/- on account of insurance money, besides being ordered to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Appellant did not put in appearance despite due service and was, therefore, ordered to be proceeded against exparte. Learned District Forum, on the basis of the documents placed on record by the respondent-complainant, allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that claim of the respondent-complainant was repudiated before the filing of the complaint, as the driving licence submitted by the complainant-respondent was not valid and effective. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. The reason is that appellant did not put in appearance despite service before the learned District Forum and take any such plea. Another reason is that the alleged letter of repudiation has not been submitted, even with the grounds of appeal.
6. In the grounds of appeal, it is not even alleged that the appellant had not been duly served or there was some reason for its not appearing before the Forum, though it is alleged that the order being exparte, should be set aside and the case remanded. So, we see no justification for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case.
7. Though there was no evidence available with the learned District Forum indicating as to what was the extent of damage caused to the vehicle or what amount of money had been spent on the repair of the vehicle, yet counsel for the appellant is having surveyors report, in which the assessment of loss is indicated to be `57,000/-.
8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member November 05, 2012.
*DC Dhiman* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?