Decided on February 18,2020



Dinesh Singh, J. - (1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 16.11.2010 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 2642 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 24.08.2006 in C.C. No. 142 of 2005 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'. The Petitioner herein, M/s M.L. Spinners Private Limited, through its Director, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant Firm'. The Respondents herein, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, and are hereinafter being referred to as the 'Insurance Co.'.
(2.) We heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant Firm and the Insurance Co., and perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 24.08.2006 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 16.11.2010 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Petition.
(3.) The brief facts of the case have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in the first three paragraphs (unnumbered) of its Order of 16.11.2010, and are reproduced below: The brief facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that the respondent (complainant) had got insured his unit with the appellants-opposite parties for the year 2003-2004 @ Rs. 2.25 per thousand having value of Rs. 4,94,35,000/- vide cover note No. 065859 w.e.f. 2.3.2003 to 1.3.2004 for which premium of Rs. 1,57,018/- was paid which included the risk of building and machinery. The opposite parties charged further premium of Rs. 71,00,000/- + Rs. 50/- per thousand as earthquake risk charges. The opposite parties raised a demand of Rs. 57,197/- from the complainant by saying that the meeting GIPSA was conducted and all the insurance companies had decided to charge rate of insurance at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per thousand to Rs. 3.25 per thousand upon such type of units, which included Rs. 1/- as loading charges due to high claim ratio. The complainant deposited the above said amount of Rs. 57,197/-. The complainant thereafter further got insured his unit from the appellants opposite parties vide cover note No. 63330 and 63331 for the year 2004-2005 w.e.f. 2.3.2004 to 1.3.2005 risk cover Rs. 75,00,000/- and Rs. 47.65,000/- and the opposite parties charged Rs. 1,65,000/- and Rs. 71,599/- @ Rs 3.25 per thousand plus Rs. 50/- per thousand plus service charges as premium of earthquake. The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that upon enquiry it was revealed that tariff rate of all the insurance companies was Rs. 2.25 per thousand and not Rs. 3.25 per thousand and thus the opposite parties had wrongly charged the complainant.;

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