ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Oriental Insurance Company. The challenge is to the order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated December 11, 1997 whereby complaint filed by Dev Raj was allowed and direction was given to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and interest @ 18% p. a. on the amount of Rs.30,000/- for which the claim was repudiated w. e. f. May 31, 1995 and for Rs.20,000/- from the date when the aforesaid amount was offered for payment. Apart from above, costs of Rs.1,000/- were also allowed. A further direction was given for issuing notice to Sh. V. K. Bhatia, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company as to why action be not taken against him for filing false affidavit.

(2.) Dev Raj took Personal Accident Policy for Rs.1 lac from Oriental Insurance Company which was valid for a year from May 14, 1993. He suffered injuries in a road accident which occured on November 10, 1993 at about 7.30 p. m. For the injuries suffered, he took treatment from Anand Hospital. He suffered injury to the eye. He lodged a claim with the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs.99,000/-. The Insurance Company showed willingness to pay Rs.20,000/- only and repudiated the claim. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company, complaint was filed before the District Forum. The Insurance Company submitted the reply taking up preliminary objections about the maintainability of the complaint and that the matter could be taken up only before the Civil Court. On merits, the complaint was subjected to strict proof of the allegations of the accident as well as the loss suffered. It was denied that any offer of payment of Rs.20,000/- was made. The claim was repudiated as alleged. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum framed the following questions for consideration : 1. Whether this Forum is not competent to entertain this complaint 2. Whether there is 'deficiency in Service' on the part of the respondent

(3.) Relief.3. All the questions referred to above were decided in favour of the complainant and the impugned order was passed.