ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SARBARI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.250/2005 in favour of Sarbari Bibi and others, Respondents herein who were the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Rehmat Ali, deceased husband of the Respondent (Sarbari Bibi) after getting a loan from Central Bank of India purchased a Tata Hitachi EX-100 Excavator in 2001 which was insured for a sum of Rs.22 lakhs under a comprehensive insurance policy for the period 04.12.2002 to 03.12.2003 with the Petitioner/Insurance Company. On 10.11.2003 an accident occurred at Rauli Nalla in Distt. Kullu, H.P. in which the Excavator fell about 40 feet down and got totally damaged. Rehmat Ali (hereinafter referred to as the 'insuree/deceased') also expired in the said accident. The accident was duly reported to the Petitioner/Insurance Company who appointed a Surveyor to investigate the matter. Respondent being the nominee/wife of the insuree filed the claim and gave all relevant documents to the Surveyor for early settlement of the claim. The Surveyor asked Respondent to retrieve the Excavator from the spot and even though the cost of retrieval was very high, since the Respodent was assured that the retrieving charges will be borne by Petitioner/Insurance Company, a private crane was hired to retrieve the Excavator which charged Rs.2,85,000/- from the Respondent and on payment of this amount gave a receipt to that effect. Thereafter, another Surveyor was appointed for assessment of loss and an estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.19,54,000/- was made available to him as also to the Petitioner/Insurance company. However, despite having submitted all the necessary papers and receipts, the claim was not settled. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner/Insurance Company be directed to pay 75% of the total sum assured i.e. Rs.16,60,000/- as also Rs.2,85,000/- spent by Respondent on retrieving the Excavator along with accrued interest on the loan amount from the date of accident till realization. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony including litigation cost was also sought.

(3.) Petitioner/Insurance Company while admitting that accident had taken place in which the insuree had lost his life, stated that the partnership firm (M/s Naim Akhtar Contractors) comprising of Naim Akhtar and the deceased/insuree had got dissolved before the institution of the complaint and therefore, there was no contract of insurance of the complainant with Petitioner/Insurance Company. Also there was no deficiency in tendering any services because the claim lodged by the Respondent has been processed and settled and that the complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner.