ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MOHAMMAD RAMZAN ANSARI, S/O NIZAMUDDIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 25.07.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.165/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P. No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.1,91,578/ - as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. for the period from 16.11.2011 till date of payment. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/ - as compensation for physical, mental agony and inconvenience and Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation to the respondent No.1 (complainant).

(2.) IN nut shell the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (complainant) had purchased a pickup bearing No.U.P. 64 -H -5834 after obtaining finance from respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and the said vehicle was insured with appellant (O.P.No.1) under Policy No.192402/31/2011/7714 for the period from 17.09.2010 to 16.09.2011. During subsistence of insurance, the vehicle met with an accident on 13.03.2011. Intimation to the insurer was given and survey was done, but the amount of claim was not paid to the respondent No.1 (complainant). It was averred in the complaint that on the instruction of the appellant (O.P.No.1), the respondent No.1 (complainant) had got the vehicle repaired and had spent Rs.1,65,325/ - towards repairs.

(3.) THE appellant (O.P.No.1) resisted the complaint. It was admitted in the written version that the respondent No.1 (complainant) had obtained insurance coverage from appellant (O.P.No.1) for the period between 17.09.2010 to 16.09.2011 and during subsistence of insurance the vehicle had met with an accident. Appellant (O.P.No.1) denied all the allegations regarding deficiency in service. It was averred that the respondent No.1 (complainant) himself had failed to comply with the conditions of the policy. He had exaggerated the claim and had got the vehicle repaired without instructions from appellant (O.P. No.1). It was pleaded that the respondent No.1 (complainant) is not entitled to get any amount from the appellant (O.P.No.1), as he had refused to accept Rs.43,500/ -, which was offered by the appellant (O.P.No.1) towards claim. It was averred that at the time of accident, the driver did not have valid driving licence and under the circumstances, appellant (O.P.No.1) was not liable for making payment to the respondent No.1 (complainant).