Shahenn Khan, Mr. Vijay Kumar … vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., … on 11 July, 2006

  
 
 
 
 
 
 NCDRC
  
 
 
 







 



 

National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission 

 

New Delhi 

 

  

 Revision Petition No. 2546 of 2005

 

(From the order dated 7.7.2005 in Appeal
Nos. 1523 of 2002 and 1523-A of 2002 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)

 

  

 

  

 

Shahenn Khan,D/s. Mubassir Alam Khan, 

 

R/o Maliwada, Distt.
Aurangabad  

 

( Maharashtra),Through 

 

Her G.P.A. Holder  Mr.M.A.Khan,  

 

H.No.1-15-54, Deodi Bazar, 

 

Aurangbad  431 001, Maharashtra  Petitioner 

 

  

 

 Versus 

 

  

 

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 

 

Samadani Chambers, 

 

  Gulmandi Road, Aurangabad ( Maharashtra) 

 

Through 

 

Its Manager.  Respondent 

 

  

 

 BEFORE:

 

  HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH,
PRESIDENT. 

 

 MRS.
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. 

 

  

 

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Yetnoorkar,Advocate. 

 

  

 

For the Respondent : Mr. Kishore
Rawat, Advocate. 

 

   

 

 Dt. 11.7.2006 

 

  

 O R D
E R 

 

  

 

 M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT.  

 

  

 

  Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and
Order dated 7.7.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra in Appeal Nos. 1523 of 2002 and 1523-A of 2002. 

 

  

 

  After appreciating the evidence which
was produced on record, the District Forum, Aurangabad,
by its Judgment and Order dated 23rd July, 2002 allowed the
complaint  ADCRF/CDR No. 2 of 2001 filed by the Petitioner and directed the
Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,20,500/- with interest at
the rate of 12% p.a. from
23.3.2000. Against that order the Insurance Company preferred Appeal No. 1523
of 2002 praying for setting aside the order of the District Forum. The
Complainant also preferred Appeal No. 1523-A of 2002 against the order of the
District Forum for enhancement of compensation.
 

 

  

 

 The
State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside the order passed by the
District Forum solely on the ground that the Complainant had accepted the
amount of Rs.1.49,500/- by signing the discharge voucher voluntarily. Against
that order, this Revision Petition is filed. 

 

  

 

 At
the time of hearing of the Revision Petition, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the State Commission, on the face
of it, is erroneous as the State Commission has failed to consider the
discharge voucher dated 23.3.2000 wherein the Complainant has signed it and had
specifically stated that the amount was accepted under protest. 

 

  

 

 On
this aspect, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company failed to point out anything
contrary.  

 

  

 

 However,
learned Counsel Mr.Rawat submitted that as per the
survey report the Ambassadar Car was stolen on
16.3.1999; the vehicle was purchased on 17.7.1997 and was used as a tourist
taxi; considering the fact that the
vehicle was being used as a tourist taxi and also the prevailing market value,
the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.2,35,000/-. He further submitted that
there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the Surveyors report. 

 

  

 

 Against
this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant submitted that
the insurance policy was taken for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and, therefore, on that
basis, the District Forum has considered its value at Rs.2,70,000/-. He also
points out that on the said car the Complainant has taken a loan for a sum of
Rs.2,85,000/- and she was required to pay monthly
instalment of Rs.4,000/- to the Bank. 

 

  

 

 From
the record it is apparent that for the reasons best known to the officers of
the Insurance Company : 

 

(a)             
the survey report
was not produced on record before the District Forum or the State Commission; 

 

(b)             
it was not proper
for the Insurance Company to withhold the relevant evidence and to suppress the
same; and, 

 

(c)             
in any set of circumstances, when the
Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.2,35,000/- there was no justifiable reason
to coerce the insured to accept only Rs.1,49,500/-. 

 

  

 

  Further, it is apparent on record that for
purchasing the vehicle, the Complainant was required to take a loan of
Rs.2,85,000/- from the bank. She was required to pay monthly instalments with
interest. The Surveyor has not seen the
vehicle, and, therefore, it would be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that
the loss assessed by the Surveyor would be just and reasonable. As against
this, the loss assessed by the District Forum is after considering the fact
that the Complainant has purchased new Ambassador Car for a sum of
Rs.3,35,500/-. It was stolen within a period of 20 months from the date of the
purchase; and, that the assured sum was Rs.3 lakhs. Hence, the loss was
assessed on the basis of depreciation table provided by the Insurance Company,
and, the loss was assessed at Rs.2,70,000/-.  

 

  

 

   In our view, this finding is just,
reasonable and equitable. And, in any case, it does not call for any
interference, when officers of the Insurance Company have exploited the
situation by not settling the claim on the basis of the survey report. 

 

  

 

 Hence, the
impugned order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1523 of 2002 is set
aside. The order passed by the District Forum is restored. The Insurance
Company is directed to pay Rs.1,20,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
from 23.3.2000 till the date of payment, with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 

 


Sd/- 

 

 ..J. 

 

 ( M.B.SHAH) 

  PRESIDENT

 

 Sd/- 

 

 . 

(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)

MEMBER