NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute behind this revision petition is akin to a game of snake & ladder. It has passed through many ups and downs during the last 25 years. The dispute pertains to the insurance claim of an insured truck, which met with an accident on 14th of October, 1985. When the claim was not settled by the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company in time, the insured respondent/complainant Nand Lal filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Solan, after issuance of legal notice, during the year 1992. Thereafter the matter was adjudicated upon at least thrice by the District Consumer Fora and four times by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (State Commission for short) on different occasions while the matter had also reached this Commission (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) when on 8th of April, 2005 the matter was remitted back to the State Commission for consideration on merits. For the adjudication of this revision petition, it is not necessary to give stage -wise details of the case. The facts relevant for the proper consideration of the case, however, need be stated.

(2.) THE truck of the respondent/complainant was insured for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ -. During the currency of the insurance, it met with an accident on 14th of October, 1985. An FIR in this regard was lodged with the police station at Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company was duly informed and a claim was submitted before them, who, however, avoided settling the claim expeditiously on one pretext or the other by raising queries despite the fact that the requisite documents had been furnished by the respondent/complainant. Legal notice issued by the respondent/complainant on the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company too did not find any response and the respondent/complainant, therefore, was forced to knock the doors of the Consumer Fora. The District Forum, Solan, however, did not entertain the complaint of the respondent/complainant for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, forcing him to approach the State Commission, who, vide their order dated 02.04.1997, while directing the respondent/complainant to supply the photocopies of the documents supplied earlier to the Insurance Company, directed the Insurance Company as under : -

(3.) THE petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company, however, unilaterally took a view based on the verification of the report of a surveyor, who had been appointed earlier, assessing the loss at Rs.37,800/ - and on 16th of July, 1998 they asked the respondent/complainant to execute a discharge voucher in full and final settlement of his claim at Rs.37,800/ -, which, however, was declined by the respondent/complainant. The petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company thereafter, on their own, remitted the amount of Rs.37,800/ - to the Bank, from whom the respondent/complainant had obtained the loan for purchase of the truck, and alleged to have obtained a discharge voucher in full and final settlement of the claim. The matter was again taken up by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, Shimla, who, while holding that the loss of Rs.37,800/ - was just and proper, allowed only 9% interest thereon w.e.f. 10th of August, 1998 and awarded a cost of Rs.1000/ -. Dissatisfied the respondent/complainant filed an appeal for enhancement before the State Commission, who vide their order dated 31st of March, 2004 dismissed the appeal for non -prosecution. The matter thereafter came before this Commission, who, as already stated, vide order dated 8th of April, 2005 remanded the matter back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh with a rider that the respondent/complainant would deposit Rs.15,000/ - which was ordered by the State Commission to be so deposited earlier. It was in this backdrop that the respondent/complainant having deposited Rs.15,000/ - with the State Commission the matter has been decided by the State Commission, who vide the impugned order dated 30th of September, 2005 have set aside the award of Rs.37,800/ - passed by the District Forum and have directed the petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ -, the insured amount, with 9% interest per annum w.e.f. 10th of August, 1998, besides Rs.10,000/ - for mental harassment and Rs.3000/ - towards the cost of litigation. The petitioner/opposite party/Insurance Company seeks to challenge this order of the State Commission in this revision petition.