National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. on 17 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 27/02/2008 in Complaint No. 6/2002 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its Manager Kanchenjunga, Barakhamba Road, Regional Office, Kanchenjunga, Barakhamba Road New Delhi ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. JHUNJHUNWALA VANASPATI LTD. Through its Director, Nati Imli, Varanasi ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 24/01/2008 in Complaint No. 5/2003 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) WITH
IA/946/2017(Placing addl. documents) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its Manager, Kanchenjunga, Barakhamba Road, Regional Office, Kanchenjunga, Barakhamba Road New Delhi ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. JHUNJHUNWALA VANASPATI LTD. Through its Director, Nati Imli, Varanasi ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Appellant : For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent : Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate Ms. Abhivandana Chaudhury, Advocate Dated : 17 Jan 2018 ORDER D.K. JAIN, J., PRESIDENT
1. By these two First Appeals, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company")/ Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints under the Act, call in question the legality and correctness of the orders dated 27.02.2008 & 24.01.2008, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Cases No. 06/02 & 05/03 respectively. By the impugned orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in unjustifiably repudiating the claims, preferred by it, for the loss suffered on account of overturning of the tankers, containing Palmolein Oil, en-route to its destination, the State Commission has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant sums of ₹5,52,150/- and ₹5,89,221/-, along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the Complaints till actual realization, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said orders.
2. Though the State Commission has disposed of the Complaints by two separate orders, but, except for some variation in the dates & events and the amount of transactions involved, both the Complaints being between the same parties and involving more or less similar issues, we deem it expedient to dispose of these Appeals by this common order. Nonetheless, except to note that the Complainant is engaged in the manufacturing of vegetable Vanaspati ghee, in its manufacturing unit at Naupur, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, for which purpose it used to purchase Palmolein Oil from different parts of the country as well as abroad, we shall briefly refer to the factual matrix leading to the filing of the Complaints in each of the Appeals as under:-
First Appeal No. 272 of 2009The Complainant had taken from the Insurance Company Marine Cargo Insurance Policy which was valid from 24.04.1997 to 23.04.1998. The policy covered risk against any loss or damage arising out of any road accident and/or theft, pilferage and non-delivery (TPND). Sometime in November, 1997, a consignment of the said oil was dispatched to the Complainant through M/s Fomra Bulk Carriers at Kolkata. On 24.11.1997 the Complainant received information that the tanker carrying the oil had overturned on the way and almost the entire quantity of the oil was lost due to leakage and drainage. Upon receipt of information, while intimating about the incident to the Insurance Company on 25.11.1997, the Complainant also lodged an FIR with the Police at Varanasi on 29.11.1997. Besides, an FIR about the incident was also lodged by the Carrier. Upon receiving the intimation, the Insurance Company appointed M/s D. Chand & Co. to assess the loss/damage suffered by the Complainant. After conducting local enquiries, including from the Police, the Surveyor submitted its Marine Survey report dated 02.02.1998 to the Insurance Company opining thus:
"During discussion with chauparan police we came to know only little quantity of oil was available in tanker at the time of handing over to Varanasi Police.
During inspection of spot of occurrence we observed that there was no any loss of single drop of oil due to accident. There was no any hole or damage was observed in tanker body at the spot.
From above facts and details available, we are in the opinion that tanker was brought to place of accident in almost empty condition and left for accident to such a place of prove transit loss.
In our opinion there is no any loss of oil due to this accident. We have already given a letter for the same on 09-12-97 to Gaya Division." (Emphasis added)
4. On 17.02.1998, the Complainant preferred claim under the policy, praying for indemnification of loss to the tune of ₹5,52,150/-. Subsequently, the Insurance Company appointed yet another Surveyor, namely, Rakesh Agarwal & Associates, Chartered Engineers, Valuers, Loss Adjusters, to investigate into the claim and assess the loss. The Surveyor submitted its report, dated 28.03.2001, to the Insurance Company, concluding as follows:
"Detailed investigation at Police Stations Chouparan and Jaitpura Thana, Varanasi, and statement of the persons who were present at the site where the alleged accident reported to have been taken place revealed that there was no loss to consignment. The insured had made an attempt to make good of the alleged non-delivery of consignment by preferring a claim on the underwriters by using malicious tactics which is beyond the coverage and is not acceptable. Further it has been confirmed that the consignment in question was disposed at Calcutta itself and not at all reached its destination. Under the circumstances, insured has no legal status to make claim on the underwriters. Further he is not at all interested in releasing the impounded tanker, the value of which was more than the value of the consignment. Alleged loss is not covered under T.P.N.D. Risk as well. Policy breach has been proved. The report is released without prejudice." (Emphasis added)
5. Finally, vide its letter dated 17.09.2001, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim.First Appeal No. 273 of 2009
The Complainant had taken from the Insurance Company a similar Marine Cargo Insurance Policy. The said policy was valid from 20.04.1998 to 19.04.1999. As in the earlier policy, the policy covered risk against any loss or damage arising out of any road accident and/or theft, pilferage and non-delivery (TPND). Sometime in October, 1998, a consignment of the said oil was dispatched to the Complainant through M/s S.P. Transport, 24 Parganas, West Bengal. On 13.10.1998 the Complainant received information that the tanker carrying the oil had overturned on the way. Upon receipt of information, on 13.10.1998 itself and 14.10.1998, two FIRs were lodged with the Police at Nimiaghat and Varanasi by the Driver of the said Carrier, namely, Kailash Nath Tiwari,and the Complainant respectively. Upon receiving the intimation about the incident, the Insurance Company appointed one Kapildev Prajapati, Surveyor to assess the loss/damage suffered by the Complainant. After conducting local enquiries, including from the Police, the Surveyor submitted its report dated 09.11.1998 to the Insurance Company opining as follows:
" Remark:-
Considering all the circumstances it appears to me that 15.870 MT. Palmolien oil cannot leak out from gasoap valve.
There was no outlet found in the tanker either in the form of hole or in the valve from the said accident.
During my inspection I did not find the flow of oil.The shadow of the oil on the ground was not sufficient to indicate the leakage of 15.870 MT of oil.
So, it is a suspicious case. It needs thoroughly investigation. This concludes my report with prejudice."
7. On 02.05.2000, the Complainant preferred claim under the second policy, praying for indemnification of loss to the tune of ₹6,29,505/-. The Insurance Company appointed yet another Surveyor, namely, Rakesh Agarwal & Associates, Chartered Engineers, Valuers, Loss Adjusters, to investigate into the claim and assess the loss. The Surveyor submitted its report, dated 28.03.2001, to the Insurance Company, concluding as follows:
"Detailed investigation at Police Stations Nimia Ghat and Jaitpura Thana, Varanasi, and statement of the persons who were present at the site where the alleged accident reported to have been taken place revealed that there was no loss to consignment. The insured had made an attempt to make good of the alleged short delivery of consignment/alleged accident of the tanker by preferring a claim on the underwriters by using malicious tactics which is beyond the coverage and is not acceptable. Further it has been confirmed that the consignment in question was disposed at Calcutta itself and not at all reached its destination. Under the circumstances, insured has no legal status to make claim on the underwriters. Alleged loss is not covered under T.P.N.D. Risk as well. Policy breach has been proved. The report is released without prejudice."
8. Finally, vide its letter dated 17.09.2001 (Appeal No.272/2009 - policy dated 24.04.1997), the Insurance Company repudiated the claim, stating as under:-
" Your claim was processed and after carefully examining the relevant records and reports of Surveyor & Investigator, it is revealed that the consignment of Palmolein Oil under the claim was disposed off by the owner, driver and cleaner at some place and in order to show the non-delivery due to pilferage, the truck was deliberately pushed down from a slope, which did not overturn and got stuck with a tree and thereafter the tanker was found to be empty having minor quantity of oil. It is more than obvious and evident that the loss to the consignment was due to wrongful act and mis-appropriation by the Carrier, who was assigned with the consignment and thus amounts to a malicious act, which is excluded under the Exclusion Clause of the Marine Cargo Insurance Policy and as such, no liability for payment of amount of loss under the policy can be attached on the Insurance Company.
We regret to inform you that since the loss of above consignment and non-delivery of the same is not covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as the same is specifically excluded under the Exclusion Clause of the Insurance Policy, your above claim is hereby repudiated."
(Emphasis added) The claim under the second policy dated 20.04.1993, was also repudiated vide letter dated 14.09.2001, on identical ground.
9. In the aforesaid background and aggrieved with the repudiation of the claims, preferred by it under the afore-stated policies, the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaints before the State Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the claimed amounts of ₹5,52,150/- and ₹6,29,505/- respectively, being the invoice value of the two consignments in question, along with interest @ 12% p.a., on the said amounts; ₹2,00,000/- as loss suffered by the Complainant due to non-settlement of the claims; ₹5,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony suffered; ₹25,000/- towards expenditure incurred in correspondence; and ₹20,000/- as litigation expenses in each of the Complaints.
10. Upon notice, the Complaints were contested by the Insurance Company, by filing its Written Version. It was contended on its behalf that unless a contract is embodied in the Marine Insurance Policy in accordance with the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, a cover-note cannot be construed as a Marine Policy and accordingly it cannot be admitted in evidence. As regards appointment of subsequent Surveyor, namely, M/s Rakesh Agrawal & Associates, it was stated that the said Surveyor was appointed as an Investigator to confirm the veracity/authenticity of the incidents and not to assess the loss. As far as the earlier Surveyors are concerned, it was averred that they had been appointed to assess the loss. As indicated in the report submitted by the said Investigator, there was non-cooperation on the part of the Complainant in submitting the requisite documents. The claims were repudiated on the basis of cogent grounds, which showed that the loss suffered by the Complainant did not fall within the scope of Theft, Pilferage or Non-Delivery but was due to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation committed by the Carrier, which was not covered under the policies in question. The Complainant had permitted the Carrier to load the tanker beyond its permitted capacity of 3.390 mt. tonnes, which was responsible for overturning of the tanker, if any, and there was no declaration to that effect to the Insurance Company, which amounted to non-disclosure of material fact, rendering the contract void/voidable. Within a period of 6½ months, three such incidents had been reported by the Complainant to the Insurance Company under different policies, wherein though the loss was attributable to misappropriation by the Carrier, but, despite issue of certificate of damage by the Carrier, no suit for recovery was filed against the Carrier, which showed that the Complainant was not a prudent owner of the consignments and there was some collusion between the Complainant and the Carrier. The Complainant had also not placed on record any proof, showing that it had paid freight to the Carrier and the value of the consignment, as it was on sale basis, and consequently in the absence of the same, the Complainant had no insurable interest under the policies in question.
11. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Complainant and consequently, as noted above, while partly allowing the Complaints, issued the afore-noted directions to the Insurance Company, observing thus:
CC/06/02 ... Falling of the tanker from the slope and dashing with the tree is proved. Consequently, it will be deemed that the tanker was damaged by falling from the slope. From the receipt of Fomra Bulk Carrier it is established that the cost of the oil is Rs.5,52,150.00. The contention of the insurance company is that the complainant is not covered by the provisions of the Marine Policy Act. In the instant matter the Opp. Party has issued only cover note after taking the premium of Rs.95,013.00 and till date the policy has not been issued while it was the duty of opp. Party to issue the policy after issuing the cover note. According to the complainant the aforesaid policy has not been given till date. Through the covernote the insurance of palm oil was done for basic T.P.N.D. and S.R.C.C. In the basic insurance the turning down and road accident was covered while in the T.P.N.D. the theft, pilferage and non-delivery was covered. In the instant case also the consignment in question was not received by the complainant. Hence, the case of non-delivery is made out. According to the complainant he had informed to the insurance company and afterwards after 4-5 years the insurance claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 17.09.2001. Even during the aforesaid period during the course of correspondence between them the insurance company never advised the complainant to file the recovery suit against the transport company nor in the repudiation letter. The alone fact was mentioned. The policy was not issued to the complainant hence the complainant was not aware about the terms and conditions of insurance policy as such in this regard there is no fault of the complainant. There is force in the argument of the complainant that in the covernote it is not mentioned that case will be initiated against the carrier. During the argument it has been argued by the insurance company that there is collusion among the driver, cleaner and owner of the tanker but the transport or its driver or cleaner are not the employees of the complainant nor any evidence has been produced that the alleged persons were the employees of complainant. As in the instant matter case of non delivery is proved which is covered by the insurance cover note. In case the goods are stolen, the same is covered under theft hence the reason shown by the opp. Party for dismissing of appeal are baseless. Under Section 378 I.P.C. if any property is given in the custody of any person of outwards he takes away the same even then it will be treated as theft."
CC/05/03 "From the aforesaid facts, it appears that after investigation the incharge of the police station has accepted the genuineness of the report lodged by the driver Sri Kailash Nath Tewari. It gives force to the contention of the Complainant. The Surveyor Sri Rakesh Aggarwal has mainly based on the report of Sri Prajapati. According to Sri Rakesh Aggarwal, the consignment was completed at Calcutta itself. Although no evidence has been produced in this regard. According to the information given by the Complainant to the S.S.P., Varanasi on 14.10.98 the Complainant got the oil lodged amounting to Rs.6,29,505/- on 07.10.98 in the tanker of SP Transport, Calcutta, which was to reach at registered office of the Complainant at Varanasi. In the aforesaid information, it has been mentioned by the Complainant that the other owners of the tankers informed him that the alleged tanker is standing near Nimiaghat (Bihar) probably the oil has been sold. In our opinion being deviated by the talks of other people and being suspicious with the loss the Complainant had informed to the S.S.P. Varanasi that the owner of the tanker Sri Dipak Kumar Singh, Driver Sri Kailash Nath Tewari, Rajesh Tewari, the owner of V.K. Roadlines Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh and the owner of S.P. Transport Sri Shital Prasad have sold his oil and it was prayed that his goods may be recovered. But prior to the above, the driver had already lodged the FIR about the accident at P.S. Nimiaghat mentioning therein that the tanker had fallen into the pit due to loss of control and the oil has flown. The surveyor Sri Prajapati has also accepted the fact that the tanker had fallen into the pit being unbalanced. Hence, it is proved that the aforesaid information given by the Complainant to the S.S.P. is based on presumption. It is also relevant to mention here that the aforesaid information given by the Complainant to the S.S.P. in Varanasi is in the form of application and not in the form of FIR hence the statement of Surveyor Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal that there was collusion, is not acceptable. Besides this, it is also the contention of the Surveyor Sri Agarwal that the aforesaid damage is not covered under T.P.N.D. He has also stated that there is also the breach of terms and conditions of Insurance policy. Contrary to it only the cover note was issued and the complete policy was not issued to the Complainant, hence he was unknown about the conditions. The report of Sri Rakesh Agarwal is not proper and reasonable because Surveyor Prajapati has accepted the occurrence of accident, flowing of oil in the river as well as flowing of oil on the ground. Sri Prajapati has also accepted the fact that some quantity of oil remained in the tanker. In his report admitting the flowing of oil on the ground, damaging of the upper back cover of the tanker, Sri Prajapati has taken the ground that flowing of oil of quantity of 15.870 M.Tons is not possible through the upper back cover but Sri Prajapati has not presented any mathematical calculation in his report from which, it can be proved as to by which measurement of hole in how long which quantity of oil can flow.
It is relevant to mention here that investigation regarding the flown oil was started by the surveyor 2 days after the accident i.e. on 15.10.98 while immediately after the occurrence of accident, the Complainant informed the Respondent on the same day hence there is deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company to sending the Surveyor delayed. The mark of flown oil cannot remain in the same position 2 days after the incident of turning down of the tanker specially on the circumstances when it has been admitted that the oil was flown in the river, hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
12. Hence, the present Appeals.
13. We had heard Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Learned Counsel for the Complainant at some length. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of both the contesting parties.
14. In its written submissions, while asserting that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company as the claims were repudiated on valid grounds, it is pleaded that the said decision was based on the report of the Surveyors, wherein it was reported that (i) the consignment had been mis-appropriated by the driver of the vehicle; (ii) no loss of oil was found at the spot of the accident; (iii) there was no damage or hole in the body of the tanker; (iv) the consignee G.R. was not produced by the Insured and (v) the FIR was lodged by the insured under Section 407 I.P.C. against the Truck owner, driver and cleaner and hence it was not a case of loss due to road accident. In so far as the question of supply of Surveyors' report to the insured is concerned, the stand of the Insurance Company is that there is no statutory mandate to supply the same but the Insureres do supply it only on demand by the insured. It is also urged that though the Complainant had lodged FIR against the aforesaid persons but they have not been made parties in the Complaints before the State Commission and hence the Insurance Company has lost its valuable right of subrogation due to lapse of time.
15. Per contra, while supporting the view taken by the Fora below, it is stressed by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that assuming for the sake of argument that the Insurance Company had some suspicion about the accidents, as highlighted by the Surveyor, yet the Complainant having lost almost the whole quantity of the oil, on account of alleged misappropriation or its theft either by the Transporter or the driver, loss suffered by the Complainant on account of non-delivery of the consignments, is covered under the policies.
16. Before adverting to the rival stands, we deem it necessary to notice the relevant terms and conditions in the two policies, under reference. (As extracted in the report of the Surveyor - policy cover not placed on record -despite opportunity to both the parties). These are:
"In consideration of an additional premium, it is hereby agreed that this Insurance cover loss of or damage to the subject matter insured caused by theft or pilferage, or by non-delivery of an entire package, subject always to the exclusions contained in this insurance."
The exclusion clauses (as extracted in the said report) are:-
" In this connection, we reproduce exclusions which are common to institute cargo clauses (A), (B) & (C) no.2.
"Deliberate damage or destruction by the wrongful Act of any person or persons". This exclusion appears in ICC (B) and (C). However, if the assured desired this risk to be covered, the underwriter may do so. At his discretion, after close examination of the bonafides, reputation and financial standing of the carrier. This exclusion under ICC(B) and (c) may then be deleted by inserting the 'malicious damage clause' whereby the cover will embrace also the additional risks of 'malicious acts' 'vandalism' and 'sabotage' and additional premium will be charged.
This exclusion does not apply to ICC (A) because the risks would be embraced within the term "all risks. (In our case it is not all risk policy)"
17. It is manifest from a bare reading of the afore-stated policy conditions that loss or damage to the insured material, caused on account of theft or pilferage or by non-delivery of the consignment is covered under the policy. The opinion of the Surveyor that since a very small quantity of the oil could be salvaged and was received by the Complainant and hence it was not a case of loss of 'an entire package', in our view, is an out of context reading of the afore-stated clause. Even otherwise, evidently, both the claims have not been repudiated on the said ground. At the cost of repetition, we may note that the sole ground on which the claim has been repudiated is that non-delivery of the consignment is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, as the same is specifically excluded under the Exclusion clause, noted above. It is evident from the Exclusion clause that what is excluded is "deliberate damage or destruction by the wrongful act of any person or persons", which is not the case here. The stand of the Insurance Company in its written version is that "it is further submitted here that the claim was duly repudiated on the basis of cogent grounds strictly following the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as the loss due to criminal breach of trust and mis-appropriation committed by the carrier is not covered under the policy of Insurance Marine Cargo, since the same does not fall within the scope of theft, pilferage and non-delivery of the consignment". In our opinion, loss on account of non-delivery of consignment, on any ground whatsoever, squarely fell within the ambit of the policy. Accordingly, we affirm the view taken by the State Commission on the point.
18. Having arrived at the said conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the other grounds urged in support of the Appeals. Nevertheless, we are in complete disagreement with the stand of the Insurance Company to the effect that it is not obliged to supply to the Insured a copy of the Surveyor's report, albeit only on demand, even when the same is relied upon for rejection of the claim partly or in toto.
19. It is trite law that unless a statutory provision, either specifically or by necessary implication, excludes the application of principles of natural justice, the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to the affected party to meet the case against him, before an order or direction is made, particularly when the same has adverse civil consequences, is necessary. Obviously rejection of even a part of the claim made under an insurance policy, entails adverse civil consequences and hence, principles of natural justice demand that any report by the Surveyor, having material bearing on the consideration of the claim, is required to be supplied to the Insured/Claimant, to enable him to put forth his stand thereon, before the same is relied upon against him. Evidently, this exercise was not undertaken in the instant case, and therefore, the decision taken by Insurance Company to repudiate the claim, also stood vitiated, being violative of the principles of natural justice.
20. For the aforesaid view, we derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 664. In the said decision, R.S. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the majority in a three-Judge Bench, lucidly explained the meaning and scope of the concept of "natural justice". Referring to several decisions, his Lordship observed as follows:-
"Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules. But there are two fundamental maxims of natural justice viz. (i) audi alteram partem, and (ii) nemo judex in re sua. The audi alteram partem rule has many facets, two of them being (a) notice of the case to be met; and (b) opportunity to explain . This rule cannot be sacrificed at the alter of administrative convenience or celerity. The general principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application - seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post-decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise."
21. Thus, in the final analysis, we endorse the view expressed by the State Commission in the orders challenged in these Appeals to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claims, subject matter of these two appeals.
22. Resultantly, both the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
23. The amount of ₹2,00,000/- in each case , if deposited by the Insurance Company with the State Commission, in terms of our order dated 31.07.2009, shall be released to the Complainant forthwith. The balance amount due in term of this order shall be remitted by the Insurance Company to the Complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realisation. However, the statutory deposits made by the Appellant at the time of filing the Appeals, shall be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER