Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Girdhari Lal vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 21 January, 2009

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
                         DEHRA DUN

                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 351 / 2007

Girdhari Lal
R/o Village Banglow Ki Kandi
Kempty, Mussoorie
                                           ......Appellant / Complainant
                                Versus

1.    Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
      Opposite Kwality Kulri
      Mussoorie

2.    Punjab National Bank
      Kempty, District Tehri Garhwal
                                       .....Respondents / Opposite Parties

Sh. H.L. Khanna, Learned Attorney for the Appellant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
       C.C. Pant,                      Member
       Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma,         Member

Dated: 21/01/2009

                               ORDER

(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):

This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing consumer complaint No. 29 / 2005 and directing the insurer to pay compensation of Rs. 8,000/- together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, by way of indemnification of the loss sustained by the complainant on account of death of his insured horse. Complainant felt dissatisfied by the impugned order, for not awarding cost of the litigation; interest on the amount of compensation from the date of death of the animal; damages for loss of business and not taxing the insurer for sum of Rs. 1,000/-, unpaid costs, awarded from 2 time to time to the complainant on the adjournment applications filed in the case.

2. Having heard the learned attorney for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, modification in the impugned order need to be made to the extent of taxing the insurer to pay outstanding cost of the adjournments, totaling Rs. 1,000/- only. The reason being that according to the complainant, 32 adjournments were granted by the District Forum on the application of the respondent No. 1 - insurer and the costs awarded from time to time, have not been paid to the complainant. The District Forum failed to take into account this fact and the insurer, thus, could not be taxed by the impugned order, to pay costs amounting to Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

3. In the face of the facts of the case, we do not think that the complainant was also required to be paid litigation expenses. The reason being that the matter of awarding of cost, rest on the discretion, to be exercised by the District Forum and we see no cogent reason to interfere with the discretion so exercised, in not awarding cost of the litigation in the case. This reasoning also holds good in regard to the date, from which the interest is to be paid on the compensation awarded to the complainant. Complainant could not insist that he should have been awarded interest on the compensation of Rs. 8,000/- from the date of death of the animal. Normally, some time is required to settle the claim and in this case, the claim had been repudiated on the grounds, which according to the insurer, were justified, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy. This led to the filing of the complaint and by reason of the same, the interest was not necessarily to be awarded from the date of death of the animal.

4. In so far as the loss of business and damages / compensation under this head was concerned, it need to be stated that apparently, the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, do not cater for any damages on account of loss of business. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are meant to determine compensation payable, as a result of deficiency in service, but these do not provide for awarding of compensation on the ground of loss of business of the insured.

5. In view of above, the order impugned is required to be modified, as stated above, so as to tax the insurer with costs amounting to Rs. 1,000/-, which remained unpaid till the date of disposal of the consumer complaint on merit. The insurer, thus, shall also pay sum of Rs. 1,000/- in addition to the compensation of Rs. 8,000/- with interest, as awarded by the District Forum.

6. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Cost of the appeal made easy.

(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal