DARSHAN KAUR vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 11.6.2003 whereby the D.F., Bharatpur modified its order made on 3.12.2002 in petitioner''s Complaint No. 206/2002.

THE relevant facts are that the insured truck of the petitioner was stolen on 23.6.2000 and the petitioner filed a claim with the respondent Insruance Company. It appears that the petitioner had also reported the offence to the police authorities who investigated the commission of the offence. THE respondent Company could not, therefore, finalise the claim of the petitioner. THE petitioner thereupon filed Complaint No. 206/2002. This complaint was allowed by the D.F. vide its order dated 3.12.2002 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to the petitioner payable with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.3.2001. The Insurance Company appears to have moved a Misc. Application No. 7/2002 whereby it required the D.F. to rectify the error which, according to it, had been committed in mentioning the date as 1.3.2001 instead of 1.3.2002. The case of the Insurance Company was that since the copy of the F.R. submitted by the police in the criminal case was made available to the Company on 4.12.2001, the interest should have been awarded, if at all, from the date after 4.12.2001 and, therefore, the date mentioned in the operative order should have been 1.3.2002 and not 1.3.2001. The D.F. accepted the contention of the Insurance Company and directed that the interest would be payable from 1.3.2002 as the date of 1.3.2001 was simply a typographical error in the order dated 3.12.2002. It is against such order of the D.F. that the petitioner has submitted that the D.F. had erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that since there was simply a typographical error in the order of the D.F. dated 3.12.2002, the D.F. was justified and within its jurisdiction to have rectified the mistake apparent from record. In support of his argument the learned Counsel has referred to the fact that the copy of the final report, as submitted by the police in the criminal case, was made available to the Insurance Company on 4.12.2001 and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay interest on the amount of compensation could have reasonably commenced from 1.3.2002.

IT needs to be appreciated that finalisation of the claim of the consumer is not dependent upon the production of such document by the complainant before the Insurance Company which document can be obtained by the investigator from the concerned persons, who may be Government servants, in the discharge of his duties to the Insurance Company. The complainant may be a minor, an illiterate widow and insane person, not properly represented through a well wisher. Her claim cannot be forfeited due to her failing to produce such documents to the Insurance Company which are not in her possession. The complainant was under no statutory or contractual obligation to produce the copy of the F.R. from the possession of the police, to the Insurance Company. The investigating officer could have obtained such document from the Police Department and finalised the claim. Viewed in the light of above observations, it may be appreciated that the insured vehicle had been stolen from the possession of the complainant on 23.5.2000 and she had duly submitted a claim to the Insurance Company. Such claim, was required to be finalised, either against the complainant or in her favour, at an early date. Since such claim was not finalised by the Insurance Company, the D.F. could have reasonably awarded interest to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.2001 which was mentioned by it in its order dated 3.12.2002. In our opinion the matter did not involve a typographical error only so as to warrant rectification thereof in exercise of any inherent power by the D.F. We, therefore, hold that the D.F. exercised the jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity. In the result, the impugned order dated 11.6.2003 is set aside and the petition is allowed. R.P. allowed.