Balbir Kaur vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Balbir Kaur against the order dated 30.8.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1069 of 2014.

Brief facts of the care are that the petitioner's insurance claim was accepted by the insurance company and the claim was settled for an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- on the basis of consent given by the petitioner. However, the complainant later on, alleged that the consent was given with a condition that the settled claim may be disbursed to her within a period of two months. The insurance company could not pay within two months and therefore, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint bearing no.111/12 before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the claim and directed the insurance company to pay the settled amount of Rs.4,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of offer of settlement i.e. 6.1.2012 alongwith Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. However, the State Commission vide its order dated 30.8.2017 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that insurance claim was settled by the respondent-insurance company on 6.1.2012 . However, as the petitioner was in dire need of money and she agreed with settled amount of Rs.4,90,000/- but made a condition that the money may be disbursed within two months. As the insurance company did not remit the money within a period of two months , the settlement obviously stood cancelled and the petitioner/complainant is entitled to get the total loss suffered by her. It was stated that the total IDV of the vehicle was for Rs.12 lakhs. It was argued that if it is not possible to get the IDV of the vehicle though the bus in question was totally burnt and it was a case of total loss, the insurance company should at least give Rs.8,10,176.88 as has been assessed by the surveyor on repair cost basis.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and examined the material on record. First of all, it is seen that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as there was a delay of 5 months and 10 days. It is seen from the grounds of revision petition that no ground has been taken to counter the decision of the State Commission dismissing the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal. Even during the arguments, no arguments were advanced by learned counsel in respect of delay. Nothing was said that delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission was justified. On this aspect, it seems that the petitioner does not have any convincing and justifiable arguments for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Even on merits, it is seen that the surveyor has finally recommended a sum of Rs.4,90,000/-. Clearly the figure of Rs.8,10,176.88 is the estimate of repairs. However, the surveyor has to deduct various items as per the conditions of the policy and as per the norms existing in the field of insurance. The District Forum has allowed finally the loss assessed by the surveyor which is Rs.4,90,000/-. The report of the surveyor is an important document for deciding the insurance claim and surveyor's report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons. The insurance company settled the matter on the basis of report of the surveyor. As the insurance company could not give the amount within two months to the complainant, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and District Forum also allowed the claim on the basis of surveyor's report and directed the OP insurance company to pay Rs.4,90,000/-. However, for delay in payment, the District Forum has also awarded interest on this amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of offer of settlement i.e. 6.1.2012.

As the petitioner had agreed to accept the amount of Rs.4,90,000/- as assessed by the surveyor and the District Forum has allowed the interest on this amount from the date of settlement, in my view, an appropriate relief in the form of interest has already been granted to the petitioner/complainant by the District Forum. There seems to be no merit in the revision petition. Thus, no purpose will be served even if delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission is condoned and the matter is remanded to the State Commission because, first of all, there is no such request and this issue of delay has not been raised in the revision petition and secondly the case of the petitioner does not have any merit.

From the above discussion, I reach to the conclusion that the District Forum has rightly decided the complaint and State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the R.P. No. 3862 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.