AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), Bharati Axa General Life Insurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company"), calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 15.02.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.18 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh (for short "the District Forum") in CC No.515 of 2014 to the extent that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim preferred by the Complainant for indemnification of the loss suffered by him in respect of the insured vehicle on account of accident on 15.12.2013, has reduced the amount of compensation from 5,18,336/-, as awarded by the District Forum, to 3,88,752/-, i.e. 75% of 5,18,336/-.
In short, the grievance of the Insurance Company is that the impugned order is non-speaking inasmuch as it does not indicate any reason for awarding the afore-stated compensation and further, the insured vehicle having been used for "commercial purpose", the Complainant was not entitled to any compensation on account of fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the report of the investigator and the statements of the driver and the owner of the vehicle, purportedly recorded by the investigator, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by the Insurance Company for interference in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction insofar as the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below with regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim in question, is concerned. Having perused the said statements, we are in agreement with the District Forum that the investigator has not clearly opined that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose. Consequently, the impugned order on the said point is affirmed.
However, having regard to the fact that there was some delay on the part of the insured in informing the Insurance Company about the accident, we are of the view that the award of interest as awarded by the Fora below on the aforesaid amount is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order to that extent.
Resultantly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent that the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay any interest on the reduced amount of compensation of 3,88,752/-. Other directions in the impugned order are maintained.
It is pointed out that a sum of 5,02,080/- has been deposited by the Insurance Company in this Commission in terms of order dated 04.05.2016. If that be so, the amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be paid to the Complainant on his moving appropriate application in this behalf and the balance amount, if any, along with interest accrued thereon shall be refunded to the Insurance Company.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.