Case nº Revision Petition No. 171 of 2011 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, February 13, 2014 (case Mallikarjun Sakri Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Showri H.R., Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. S. Srishaila, Advocate |
| President | Vineeta Rai, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member |
| Resolution Date | February 13, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Vineeta Rai, Presiding Member
1. This revision petition has been filed by Mallikarjun Sakri, Petitioner herein and Original Complainant before the Raichur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the District Forum), being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission), which had allowed the appeal of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Respondent herein and opposite party before the District Forum, by setting aside the order of the District Forum. In his complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Petitioner/Complainant had contended that he was the registered owner of vehicle Mini Lorry TATA-709 which was insured with the Respondent/Insurance Company from 2.4.2007 to 1.4.2008. During the subsistence of the said policy on 9.10.2007 at night the said vehicle which was carrying goods from Raichur to Lingasugur met with an accident while trying to avoid dashing against a bullock cart as a result of which the vehicle fell 15 ft. into a canal, causing extensive damage to the vehicle. Intimation about the accident was given to the police as also the Respondent/Insurance Company. Subsequently, the vehicle was inspected by a Surveyor appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company. The Petitioner/Complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired and sent a bill amounting to Rs. 85,234 along with necessary police records and other documents and sought settlement of the claim on 23.10.2007. In the month of November, 2007 the Respondent/Insurance Company sought further documents which were also provided but despite cooperating with the Surveyor and Insurance Company in submitting all the required documents, the Respondent/Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. Being aggrieved by the Respondent/Insurance Company in not settling the claim and also not responding to various reminders sent to it, Petitioner/Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Insurance Company be directed to pay him an amount of Rs. 85,234 being the cost incurred on repairs of the vehicle following the accident with interest at 18% per annum from 23.10.2007 till realization and Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs.
2. Respondent/Insurance Company on being served denied that there was any deficiency in service on its part. It was stated in the first instance that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial