First Appeal No. 152 of 2013. Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rita Pansari. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 152 of 2013
Party NameUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rita Pansari
CounselFor Appellant: R.C. Sahoo, Advocate and For Respondents: R.K. Pattnaik and Associates, Advocates
JudgesR.N. Biswal, J. (President) and Smarita Mohanty, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 11, 17(2), 17(2)(b)
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 117
Judgement DateMay 30, 2014
CourtOrissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

R.N. Biswal, J. (President)

  1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sambalpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in CC. No. 95 of 2011 wherein it directed the appellants to pay the respondent the deducted amount of Rs. 84,333, compensation of Rs. 1,000 for mental agony and harassment and cost of Rs. 500 within one month from the date of passing of the order, failing which it further directed that the same would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment. The appellants were opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company) and the respondent was complainant before the District Forum.

  2. The fact giving rise to this appeal in short is that on 31.3.2010, complainant purchased one TATALPT1109/42 Exinsulated container Suraksha make vehicle having Engine No. 497TC93BZY807494 and Chassis No. MAT416472A7B05095. She gave a proposal on 6.4.2010 to the Insurance Company to insure the said vehicle and accordingly, it was insured covering the period 7.4.2010 to 6.4.2011 on payment of premium of Rs. 23,803 under the category of Miscellaneous and Special Type of vehicles package policy. While the policy was in force on 3.9.2010, it met with an accident under Division Office No. II, Nagpur, information of which was received by the Insurance Company on the same date. A surveyor-cum-loss assessor was appointed, who assessed the loss at Rs. 3,11,667 deducting a sum of Rs. 84,333 towards policy excess. A letter along with discharge voucher was sent to the complainant on 6.7.2010 stating that the competent authority approved her claim for Rs. 3,11,667 and requesting her to return the discharge voucher duly discharged. It is the case of the complainant that as she was in dire need of money, she signed the discharge voucher on 6.7.2010 without protest. On 8.7.2010, she wrote a letter to the Insurance Company stating that the amount proposed for settlement was too low and requested them for supply of detail assessment as to how they assessed the amount at Rs. 3,11,667 against the submitted bill of Rs. 4,51,067. In response to it, the Insurance Company vide letter dated 11.7.2010 intimated her that a sum of Rs. 84,333 was deducted from the amount assessed by the surveyor-cum-loss assessor inasmuch as the vehicle was registered by the R.T.A. as heavy goods vehicle category for which premium of Rs. 51,914 ought to have been paid, but it was insured under Miscellaneous and Special Type of vehicles package policy for which premium of Rs. 23,803 only was paid and as per the terms of contract of insurance as has been mentioned in the policy itself, the Insurance Company deducted three times of the differential premium amount i.e., Rs. 84,333 from the assessment of loss made by the surveyor-cum-loss assessor. So, according to the Insurance Company, there was no deficiency of service on their part.

  3. After going through the pleadings of the parties and assessing the evidence on record, the District Forum passed the impugned order as stated hereinbefore.

  4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal as stated earlier.

  5. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that respondent signed the discharge voucher of Rs. 3,11,667 in full satisfaction of her claim. So, now she cannot turn back and say that she was not satisfied with the amount she received.

  6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company next submits that the respondent gave the proposal to the Bargarh...

To continue reading

Request your trial