RANSINGH RAJAWAT Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 06.10.2010 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, 'the State Commission ') in appeal no. 2164 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 27.08.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhind (MP) ( in short, 'the District Forum ').

(2.) THE petitioner had approached the District Forum with a complaint primarily against respondent 1 – New India Assurance Company Ltd., (Branch Office, Bhind) which was the insurer of the Motor Vehicle (truck) owned by the petitioner/complainant with the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of respondent 1 which was the opposite party 1 (OP 1) before the District Forum while Divisional Manager, Auto Finance Company (a Division of Eicher Motor Ltd.,) was the OP 2 before the District Forum, being the financier of the truck purchased by the petitioner/complainant. The truck was stolen on 24.04.2005 during the validity of the insurance policy (22.03.2005 to 31.03.2006). The petitioner/complainant reported the theft to the Police Station concerned which registered the crime. After investigating the matter the police submitted a Final Report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind on 21.10.2005. The Petitioner/complainant has also filed his insurance claim with respondent/OP 1. However, the claim was repudiated. By its order dated 15.05.2008, the District Forum directed the respondent/OP 1 to settle the claim on non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the sum insured (Rs.6,34,454/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of repudiation till payment and cost of Rs.1000/- and deposit the said amount with the District Forum for payment to the complainant. Respondent/OP 2 was however, absent from these proceedings before the District Forum and was treated ex parte.

(3.) BY its order dated 27.08.2010, the District Forum modified its earlier order dated 15.05.2008 and directed that the amount deposited by the respondent/OP1 (insurance company) with the District Forum in accordance with its directions in the preceding order shall be released to respondent/OP 2, because the amount of loan advanced by respondent/OP 2 to the petitioner/complainant outstanding on the date of deposit of the awarded amount by the insurance company was considerably higher than the amount so deposited.