KUSUM JAIN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails order dtd. 15/12/2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench, Udaipur (in short, the 'State Commission') in appeal No. 269 of 2012 allowing appeal of the respondent and setting aside the order dtd. 28/8/2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bansawara (in short, 'the District Forum') in complaint no.78 of 2012. It is averred that the impugned order of the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum, whereby compensation for damages and repairs had been awarded in respect of an insured car which had met with an accident.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 18/5/2011, she bought a Volkswagen Polo Car from M/s. Rajesh Motors Private Limited., Udaipur and obtained an Insurance Policy valid till 17/5/2012. On 5/2/2012, the car met with an accident while being driven by the husband of the petitioner. The car is alleged to have fallen into a pit which resulted in leakage of oil from the chamber and the car stopped due to the same. The vehicle was towed to the service centre and on 6/2/2012 an estimate of Rs.3,24,168.08 for repair of the vehicle was prepared by the Service Centre. The insurance company was informed and the survey of the vehicle was done on 20/2/2012. The petitioner got the car repaired and paid Rs.3,32,000.00 towards repairs. The claim of the petitioner was estimated by the respondent insurance company on 10/4/2012 at Rs.9983.00 on the ground that the engine of the vehicle had 'seized' on account of being driven without engine oil in the chamber and that this resulted in a consequential damage which was not covered under insurance. The Petitioner filed a complaint No.78 of 2012, before the District Forum which held that there was no undue delay in communicating the information regarding the accident to the respondent insurance company and that the claimed amount of Rs.3,24,168.08 was within the insured amount of Rs.5,42,851.00 and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim constituted a deficiency in service. It accordingly awarded Rs.3,32,168.00 with interest @ 9 % per annum from 3/7/2012 with compensation of Rs.5,000.00 and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500.00 to be paid within two months. This order was appealed before the State Commission which concurred with the report of the Surveyor that the vehicle had been driven after oil from the chamber had leaked which resulted in the seizure of the engine and, therefore, constituted a consequential loss which was not admissible under the terms and conditions of the policy. The contention of the complainant was that the vehicle had been towed on 5/2/2012 to Udaipur and was not driven after the accident, so as to result in seizure of the engine. The State Commission, however, concluded that:

(3.) Aggrieved by this order the complainant is before this Commission praying for settingaside of the order of the State Commission.