LAWS(CHHCDRC)-2005-6-7

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAJI P JOHN

Decided On June 02, 2005
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Saji P John Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 27.1.2004 in Complaint No. 220/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the appellant/insurer to pay to the complainant/respondent compensation of Rs. 73,577/ - with interest @ 6% per annum from 5.7.2001. It was further directed that if the amount is not deposited within 2 months, interest would be payable @ 12% per annum. Compensation of Rs. 7,000/ - and cost of Rs. 2,000/ - was also awarded.

(2.) THE complainant alleged that he had purchased a truck No. MP -24 -C -1473 from Pithora Singh. It was also alleged that the previous owner Pithora Singh had comprehensively insured the truck with the appellant/insurer covering the risk thereof from 18.2.2000 to 17.2.2001. It was further averred that the name of the complainant/respondent was also recorded in the registration certificate by the Competent Authority on 5.8.2000. It was further alleged that on 10.10.2000, while the truck was going towards Dalli Rajhara, met with an accident. The Surveyor was appointed by the appellant. Surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 73,577/ -. However, the complainant s claim was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that intimation was not given by the complainant/respondent to the appellant/insurer regarding the purchase of the truck from the previous owner. Hence the complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the appellant/insurer. The averments in substance were that the truck was not insured by the complainant/respondent and that, since the complainant had not intimated about the purchase of truck from its previous owner Pithora Singh, he was not entitled to any benefit under the policy. It was, therefore, averred that repudiation of the complainant s claim did not amount to deficiency in service.