ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited appeals against the order of the District Forum, Jind granting relief to the respondent insured-consumer.2. In view of the somewhat limited argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the facts merit notice with brevity. The respondent had admittedly insured his Tata vehicle with the appellants for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- for a year with effect from the 23rd of May, 1991. In an accident to the said vehicle on the 11th of October, 1991 at about 8 p. m. extensive damage was caused due to a collision with a tractor approaching from the opposite side. It was the grievance that after the lodging of the insurance claim, the appellants had appointed a Surveyor, who after inspection had assessed the loss and the damage, but the settlement of the claim was still being denied altogether. The firm plea was that a sum of Rs.34,787/- was incurred on the repairs of the vehicle and damages to the tune of nearly a lac of rupees were claimed, in addition.3. Despite service the appellants did not choose to put in appearance and were proceeded against ex-parte. On the basis of the evidence led by the respondent, the District Forum directed the payment of Rs.33,837/- with interest @ 18%, but denied any further claim to damages or compensation.4. Mr. R. K. Bashamboo, learned Counsel for the appellants had chosen to advance a solitary contention. The plea was that in the wake of the admitted road accident to the vehicle on the 11th of October, 1991 a claim had been lodged by the legal representative of the person who met fatal injuries therein before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The contention was that since the matter was pending before the same authority, the appellants were entitled to withhold the settlement of the insurance claim.5. We must confess that we are somewhat surprised by the stand taken by a public corporation with regard to the settlement of claim arising of an admitted insurance policy. It is somewhat elementary that road accidents in which fatal or serious injuries are suffered, lead to claims by the parties before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, the issues therein are entirely different from the liability of the insurer to the insured parties. One fail to see how the pendency of such proceedings would entitle the appellants to withhold the settlement of the claim which they are duty bound to decide expeditiously one way or the other. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would inevitably take their time and these orders are subject to first appeals being taken to the High Court. If the pendency of such proceedings was allowed to be made a pretext for non-settlement of the insured's claim, the very purpose of the insurance by the consumers of their property would virtually be lost. This Commission has earlier taken the view that inordinate delay in the settlement of insurance claim would perse be a deficiency in the services undertaken by the insurers. Gross delay in finalising the same, on one pretext or the other would clearly come within the ambit of the relief in the consumer jurisdiction.6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs.500/- only.