ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AMARJEET SINGH KAWATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Justice R.C. Jain, Presiding Member-Aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') in complaint case No. 12 of 2008, the opposite party-Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the complaint holding that opposite party No. 1 Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs. 4,71,000 (the sum assured) along with interest from 1.9.2009 (without specifying the rate of interest) with the stipulation that the salvage of the car shall be delivered to the Insurance Company. Besides, the State Commission also awarded compensation of Rs 1 lakh in not settling the claim within reasonable time after the vehicle was destroyed in fire and Rs. 50,000 as punitive damages and Rs. 5,000 as cost of proceedings.

(2.) THIS case presents a set of somewhat piquant facts and circumstances which we would like to notice in some detail. Mr. Amarjeet Singh Kawatra, complainant had purchased a Logan Car K7MPS GLS 5 SM AIR Bag Car (Sedan), manufactured by opposite party No. 3-M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. through opposite party No. 2-M/s. Snow View Automobiles Private Limited at a price of Rs. 4,94.501 on 20.2.2008 and got it insured with the opposite party No. 1-M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited in the sum of Rs. 4,71,000 by paying the requisite premium. The car, was inter alia, insured for the peril of fire, subject to certain conditions. As luck would have it, only after four days of purchase of the car, on 3.3.2008 when Mr. Kawatra-complainant was driving the car from his new Shimla office to his residence and when he reached near Ayurvedic Hospital, Chhota Shimla, he noticed in the rear view mirror, that smoke was coming out of the car. On inspection, he found that the car had caught fire which was got extinguished with the help of fire brigade. A report was also lodged with the police and afterwards the complainant lodged the claim with opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company for indemnification of the loss suffered by him.

(3.) FINDING no favourable response, he filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 4,71,000 as the amount of insurance claim, a sum of Rs. 12 lakh on account of mental and physical harassment, Rs. 5 lakh for loss of business besides a sum of Rs. 12,000 towards the litigation cost. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company as well as on behalf of opposite party-3-M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. In its written version filed in response to the complaint, the Insurance Company objected to the very maintainability of the complaint inter alia raising objection that the complaint did not disclose any cause of action and it was premature because, on the date of filing the complaint, the claim had not been repudiated by the Insurance Company. However, the main plank of defence of opposite party No. 1 was that the fire and resultant damage to the car had occurred due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, the car having caught fire within four days of its purchase by the complainant, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss occasioned to him. The manufacturer and dealer resisted the complaint on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and, therefore, they were not liable either to refund the price of the car or to replace the car. It would appear that after the above defence versions were filed, the State Commission, without further trial of the complaint, made the following order on 25.5.2009: