National Insurance Co.Ltd vs TIKAMCHAND HANUMAN DAS

THIS appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.1994 in Consumer Case No. 5/ 93 passed by the learned District Forum, E.C. Court, Jalpaiguri. In the said Judgment, the learned District Forum held that the accident or misfortune look place within radius of 15 miles from the place of the Insured/complainant and awarded to pay the sum of Rs. 36,038.24 to the Insured/complainant who is the respondent herein from the date of this order failing which the said Insurance Company would be liable to repay the same with 18% per annum from the date of order.

IT is admitted that the incident took place within 200 yards from the place of the Insured/ complainant/respondent which conforms to the policy condition but the contention of the appellant is that as the money was collected beyond 15 miles from the place of the Insured/respondent as such the complainant/respondent is not entitled to claim any benefit under the Insurance Policy. IT further contended that the place of collection of money to be considered not the place of occurrence as the criteria to decide the claim of the complainant/respondent. It further contended that as the Insurer/ Appellant repudiated on 13.7.1992, the claim of the complainant/respondent after proper investigation by a Surveyor appointed in this regard, there is no deficiency in service as defined under Sections 2(1)(g) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. On careful scrutiny of the Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Insurance Policy, it stipulates that loss by accident or misfortune whilst the insured''s money is in his hand or in the hands of an employee in transit between any two places within a radius of 15 miles from the Insured''s premises. So it does not indicate the place of collection as it appears from the stipulation but it indicates the place of occurrence. In the said clause there is no whisper that the place of collection is to be construed for the purpose of settlement of the claim. On the other hand, it is clearly stated that incident taking place within 15 miles from the Insured''s premises, the Insured is entitled to claim as per said clause under the policy.

It is also admitted position that the misfortune took place during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy therefore unjust, arbitrary and wrongful denial of the bona fide claim made by the complainant/respondent also amounts to deficiency in service as per settled law. The repudiation on 13.7.1992, the claim of the complainant/respondent is simply unjust and arbitrary actions on the part of the Insurer/Appellant. The National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. R.S. Oil and General Mills (P) Ltd., reported in I (1992) CPJ 212 (NC), held that mere unilateral rejection of an insured claim per se does not create a jurisdictional bar to seek redress before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It further held that the insured''s bona fide claim cannot by such fiat carry out beyond pale of redress before the Consumer Forum and wrongful rejection of such Insurance claim would certainly attract jurisdic tions of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was further held that a harassed insured party can approach to the Consumer Forum to seek for delay, default and dilatoryness and he cannot be deprived of seeking redress through the Consumer Protection Act by a simple subturfuging the rejection of the claim outrightly and driving him to the tortuous and weary path of the civil litigation. Similarly we find our supports from the cases of S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in II (1991) CPJ 202 (NC), Prem Singha & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (1992) CPJ 138 (NC), Shakun Overseas Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (1992) CPJ 144 (NC) all decided by National Commission to the effect that unjust denial of benefits of the Consumer Protection Act to the aggrieved consumer is well actionable under the Consumer Protection Act. Fruther held that it would he erroneous abdication of its jurisdiction by the Forum particularly in view that the Redressal Forum vested with powers of ''summoning and enforcing attendants of witnesses and examination of them on oath, the discovery and production of document and other materials and issuing of Commissions for the examination of witness etc. As we have already observed that the place of occurrence of snatchery of money or misfortune was within the radius of 15 miles, there is no scope to escape for payment of the liability accrued under the terms of the Insurance Policy.

WE therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the order dated 2.6.1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Jalpaiguri in Consumer Case No. 5/93 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of order effective from 2.6.1994 as indicated by the District Forum, Jalpaiguri until payment of the awarded sum of Rs. 36,038.24. We, further award cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable by the Insurer/Appellant to the complainant/respondent for this proceeding.

BOTH the payments must be made within one month from the date of communication of this order. Appeal dismissed with costs.