NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ROHITASH KUMAR
LAWS(NCD)-2020-7-32
NCDRC
Decided on July 08,2020

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
ROHITASH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prem Narain, Presiding Member - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner National Insurance Company Limited challenging the order dated 3rd November 2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (in short the State Commission) in first appeal No. 208 of 2016.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the original complainant and the petitioner is the opposite party Insurance Company. The respondent's vehicle was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company and the insurance was valid from 7th March 2011 up till 6th March 2012. On 02.10.2011, the respondent had gone to Rawatsar for some urgent work and the vehicle was parked near the house of Dalip son of Krishen Lal. The respondent's vehicle caught fire in a cylinder blast. It later on came to light after police investigation that Dalip was refilling LPG gas in a car from a cylinder illegally and the cylinder blasted. The respondent did not take any action however, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum on 26.11.2013 passed the order that the complainant may submit his claim within 30 days to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company shall decide the claim within 3 months. On 8th October 2014, the petitioner moved an application before the District Forum stating that the respondent did not file complete claim along with necessary documents with the petitioner company. The District Forum vide order dated 8th October 2014 dismissed the complaint however, gave liberty to the complainant to file the claim again in case he so desired. It seems that the complainant filed the claim on 10th October 2014. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who assessed the net loss of Rs. 2,40,868. However, the Insurance Company vide it's letter dated 7th January 2015 sent a letter to the complainant stating that they should submit all the relevant documents otherwise the claim will be repudiated. As the complainant did not submit the documents within the stipulated period given by the Insurance Company, the claim was repudiated. The complainant then filed another complaint being complaint No. 202 of 2015 before the District Forum. This complaint was resisted by the petitioner Insurance Company mainly on the ground that there was a huge delay of about 3 years in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and in submitting the claim which the complainant submitted for the first time on 10th October 2014 to the Insurance Company. It was also stated that there was no insurable interest of the complainant on the said vehicle as the same was sold to Dalip and the complainant had given a statement before the police confirming the same. However, the District Forum vide it's order dated 1st August 2016 allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the petitioner Insurance Company to pay 75% of the assessed loss of Rs.2,40,086 along with Rs. 25, 000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment. Interest at the rate 9% per annum was also awarded if the amount was not paid within 1 month of the order.
(3.) The petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission vide it's order dated 3rd November 2017 dismissed the appeal.;


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