Appeal No. FA/13/125. Case: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Gurmukh Bhirani. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. FA/13/125 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manoj Prasad, Advocate and For Respondents: Indrani Choudhary, Advocate |
| Judges | R.S. Sharma, J. (President) and Heena Thakkar, Member |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 |
| Judgement Date | May 22, 2014 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
R.S. Sharma, J. (President)
-
This appeal is directed against order dated 28.1.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 1089/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,92,905 to the respondent (complainant) within a period of one month from the date of order as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.12.2011 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 as Advocate fees and cost of the litigation to the respondent (complainant). Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are that the respondent (complainant) has purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.-04-J-0403 from one Bholaram Chandrawanshi, Bhatapara, District Raipur on 20.1.2010. The said vehicle was insured by the appellant (O.P.) on 21.1.2010 and the insurance policy number was 191190/31/2010/3325. As, on 20.1.2010 the said vehicle was registered in the name of Bholaram Chandrawanshi, hence the insurance was also done in the name of Bholaram Chandrawanshi and the knowledge regarding it was to the appellant (O.P.). After registration of the vehicle in his name the respondent (complainant move applications before the appellant (O.P.) for many times for transfer of the policy in his name, but the appellant (O.P.) had not transferred the policy in his name. The said vehicle suffered a road accident on 18.2.2010. Intimation regarding the incident was given by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.) and submitted claim before the appellant (O.P.) for Rs. 2,54,971. The appellant (O.P.) repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant) on the ground that contract was not in existence between the appellant (O.P.) and respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.) through Advocate in reply of which the respondent (complainant) is not entitled for any compensation because the policy was not transferred in his name. Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,54,971 regarding damage to the vehicle and Rs. 25,000 towards compensation for mental agony.
-
The appellant (O.P.) filed his written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations levelled by the respondent (complainant) against it.
-
Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
-
Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (O.F.) argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum by allowing the complaint of the respondent (complainant), is perverse and is not sustainable in law. The learned District Forum, has failed to appreciate that the facts brought on record and has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the defining the "deficiency in service" by overlooking the facts of the case. The respondent (complainant) had misrepresented and suppressed a material fact. The policy was in the name of Mr. Bholaram Chandrawanshi. The District Forum, has overlooked the documents in this regard. Thus, the order of the District Forum is bad in law and liable to be set aside. From the perusal of the documents filed by the respondent (complainant) it is not in dispute that the respondent (complainant) was not registered owner of the vehicle in question and at the time of issuance of policy Mr. Bholaram Chandrawanshi, was registered owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial