AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Jharkahand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 34/2013, dated 28.11.2016.
In the Complaint Case, it was stated by Respondent No.1/Complainant that on 16.01.2010, he purchased a vehicle A-star from Respondent No.2 & 3 and paid Rs.4,39,955/- towards the cost of the vehicle. On the same day, Respondent No.1 paid Rs.12817/- as insurance premium but he received the premium policy after 15 days. Unfortunately, on 11.04.2010, while Dr. R.K. Deepak, colleague of Respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle, at about 10:30 p.m. at Koderma, all of sudden a piece of stone came under the vehicle and damaged the mobil chamber leading to leak of oil. The engine got seized and the vehicle stopped. Respondent No.1 immediately informed the Manager and Proprietor of Respondent No.2 & 3. On 13.04.2010, Respondent No.2 & 3 sent their mechanic and took the vehicle from Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 personally contacted Respondent No. 3 and the Manager of National Insurance Company several times but there was no response with regard to repair of the vehicle. Hence, the Complaint was filed.
The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner in which it was stated that the claim of Respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. It was contended that the insurance policy was issued as soon as the cheque and proposal form were received. It was alleged that it was not a case of an accident, rather it was a case of negligence on the part of the insured. The surveyor Mr. P.S. Kalra, who investigated the case, reported that the seizure of engine was caused due to running of the vehicle without lubricants and was not an accidental damage. It was not covered by the insurance policy. Hence, the claim of Respondent No.1 was repudiated.
Other Opposite Parties in the Complaint have submitted that Respondent No.1 had not made any specific allegations against them. They further submitted that seizure of the engine came within the preview of insurance company and hence the Complaint against them may be dropped.
District Forum, vide order dated 17.01.2013, partly allowed the Complaint. The Petitioner was directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.3,95,086/- mentioned in the policy after deducting salvage value to Respondent No.1 along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 18.05.2010 till the date of payment within 45 days from the date of judgement. Furthermore, Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as a compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- towards litigation costs within the same period of 45 days. It was also made clear that in case of failure on the part of the Petitioner to abide by the aforesaid direction, Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to realize the same under Section 27 of C.P. Act, 1986.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 28.11.2016, partly allowed the Appeal of the Petitioner. It directed that the dealer would repair the vehicle in question and would also bring it to the same condition as it was before the accident as early as possible and preferably within three weeks of receipt of copy of the order. Respondent No.1 would receive the car on payment of the bills to the Dealer. The Insurance Company would pay Respondent No.1 a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- within 30 days of receipt of the bill, failing which the Insurance Company would also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the said amounts form the date of this order till the date of payment/realization. It was seen in several cases that at the time of compliance of the order, before the District Forum, the amount minus the statutory amount, is paid and the party who was to get the amount, is asked to approach this Commission for receiving the Statutory amount, which causes unnecessary hardship, loss of money, time and energy to the person entitled to receive the amount. To avoid such a situation, let the statutory amount be returned to the Petitioner within four weeks.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
The Petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim of Respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 18.05.2010, based on the report of the Surveyor who was deputed to carry out final survey of the car on 10.05.2010, after receiving of estimate from the dealer Ms. Hindustan Auto Agency, Hazari Bagh. The Surveyor opined that seizure of the engine was caused by running the engine without lubricant. Seizure of engine was not an accidental damage but the extension of damage caused by driving the car before the necessary repairs were affected. Damages to engine caused by seizure were not covered by the Policy.
The Complainant had purchased A Star car and got it insured with the Petitioner/Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident on 11.04.2010 when a piece of stone damaged the oil chamber of the vehicle leading to oil leak. As the accident took place in a lonely place, in the interest of safety of the vehicle and the lives of the passengers, the vehicle could not be stopped at once. Engine oil had leaked due to the accident and the engine got seized. Moreover it is seen that the Policy document placed on record nowhere mentions about any exclusion of consequential damage. Both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have rightly allowed the complaint in part and granted relief to Respondent No.1, the Complainant.
Under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission has limited jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence and reach to its own independent conclusion, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011(3) Scale 654 has held as under:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power cane be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same sets of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora".
There is a concurrent finding on the matter in both the fora below. In view of the concurrent findings of the both the Fora, I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merits. The Revision Petition is dismissed and order passed by the State Commission is confirmed.