Case nº Revision Petition No. 3122 Of 2009, (Against the Order dated 15/04/2009 in Appeal No. 1045/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 13, 2015 (case 1. Andarsul Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. 2. Uday B. Wavikar Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate |
| President | Mr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | August 13, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
-
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra dated 15.04.2009 in Appeal No.105/08 arising out of consumer complaint no. 274/07 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner bank against the order of the District Forum.
-
Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum Nasik alleging that he had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party which covered various perils including the loss if any, caused to the bank due to infidelity and criminal act on the part of the appraisers. According to the complainant, due to fraudulent act on the part of the approved appraisers of the bank i.e. incorrectly valuation of the gold hypothecated, the insured suffered loss to the tune of Rs.8,13,157/-. The insurance claim in this regard was submitted but the respondent opposite party instead of sanctioning the claim to the maximum limit of Rs.3.00 lacs, settled it for Rs.11,250/-. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.
-
The respondent opposite party in its written statement admitted the issue of banker''s insurance indemnity policy for the period18.12.204 to 17.12.2005 for basic sum assured of Rs.3.00 lacs. According to the opposite party, as per condition ( G) of the insurance policy, the insurer had limited its liability for any loss or losses during the period of insurance contract due to infidelity or criminal act of each of the appraiser to 5% of the basic sum assured or Rs.20,000/- whichever is less. It was pleaded that basic sum assured was Rs.3.00 lacs. Therefore, its 5% amounted to Rs.15,000/- and after adjusting the excess of 25% as per terms and conditions of contract, the only amount payable was Rs.11,250/-, which was sanctioned. Thus, it was pleaded that opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.
-
Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that in terms of condition "G" of the terms and condition of the insurance policy, the opposite party has rightly allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.11,250/- and offered the same to the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum accordingly dismissed the complaint.
-
Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum...
To continue reading
Request your trial