NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MEERA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. A-536/2005 vide which the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal of New India Assurance Company Ltd. and confirmed the order passed by District Consumer Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi dated 21.4.2005. The District Forum in its order had directed the present petitioner, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 together with interest @ 9% with effect from 1.10.1995 as also cost of Rs. 10,000 within a period of 30 days failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 12% instead of 9% for the deficiency in service to the legal heirs of the deceased car owner who were the complainants before the District Forum.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that: Husband of the complainant Mrs. Meera Sharma, owned a Premier NE Car No. DL-2CC-0929. The car was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. the present petitioner. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 1.6.1995, a tragic incident occurred in which the car got burnt along with Shri K.C. Sharma who was inside the car. The petitioner Insurance Company was informed about the occurrence of the incident on 6.7.1995. They appointed the surveyor who reported that "the car got totally burnt from inside and outside with its tyres flatted and it a total loss case". The petitioner further appointed Mr. Raj Kumar Chopra, Surveyor who assessed the damage and reported that the liability of the insurer to be of the order of Rs. 1,23,000 on total loss basis after taking into account the estimated salvage value of the burnt car.

(3.) Subsequently, petitioners also appointed an investigator, M/s. Lokender Claims Care Corporation who reported that it was not a case of accidental fire and, therefore, recommended that the claim lodged by Mrs. Meera Sharma was not admissible.