Decided on September 29,2020

Brahmanand Javvadi Respondents


- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur, (in short 'the State Commission') in Appeal no. FA/14/ 407.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the respondent which was insured by the petitioner insurance company was stolen on 24.07.2012. In fact, the complainant along with his family had gone to the airport and the driver of the vehicle left the family at the airport on 24.07.2012. The complainant and his family went to Hyderabad and the complainant returned back from Hyderabad on 26.07.2012 and he contacted the driver for the vehicle. However, when he reached his house, he came to know that the vehicle was not there. He tried to contact the driver, but his mobile phone was switched off, thereafter, complainant tried to search the vehicle and the driver but in vain. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant informed the insurance company on 03.08.2012 and a receipt was obtained from the office of the petitioner insurance company along with the seal of the company. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had informed the police about the theft, however, the police asked him to search for the vehicle first and then lodge an FIR. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged on 07.08.2012 with the concerned police station. When there was no response from the insurance company, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint no. 320 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was contested by the insurance company by filing written statement stating that no intimation was given by the complainant about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company. It was further stated that due to the delay in filing the FIR, the conditions of the policy have been violated therefore, the claim was not payable. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 30.04.2014 as under: "In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay the following amount within a period of one month from the date of the order: The respondent will pay Rs.5,15,625/- to the complainant along with simple interest @ 9% from the date of complaint dated 14.08.2013; The respondent will pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental harassment to the complainant; and The respondent will also pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards advocate fee and cost of litigation".
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 30.10.2014 has partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum as under: "The order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the District Forum is partially modified and it is directed that the appellant insurance company will pay the sum of Rs.3,86,719/- instead of Rs.5,15,625/- to the respondent/ complainant. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum is not interfered and it will remain same. The cost of the appeal will be borne by the appellant/insurance company himself and the respondent/complainant which is assessed at Rs.3,000/-". ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.