NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs ARVIND KUMAR & ANR.

This Revision Petition, by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), is directed against the order dated 19.02.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1722 of 2005. By the impugned order, while affirming the order dated 16.09.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - II, Agra (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No.937/1995, directing the Insurance Company to pay to Respondent No.1/Complainant an amount of a sum of 2,30,000/- towards the loss suffered by him on account of theft of the insured vehicle, as assessed by the Surveyor, appointed by the Insurance Company, the State Commission has reduced the rate of interest on the said amount from 9% p.a., as awarded by the District Forum, to 6% p.a.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the documents on record, particularly the consent letter dated 09.09.1994, we do not find any substance in the Petition. Having carefully perused the said letter, signed not only by the Complainant but also the Surveyor, the Senior Divisional Manager and the Accounts Officer of the Insurance Company, whereby the Complainant had agreed to accept a sum of 2,31,000/- as full and final settlement of his claim, we are in complete agreement with the observations by the State Commission that a settlement relating to the claim had in fact been arrived at between the Complainant and the Insurance Company. So much so that at one point of time the Complainant was willing to accept a lesser amount of 1,72,500/- as full and final settlement. Unfortunately, the Insurance Company not only backed out after the settlement, arrived at in the presence of its officials, it used the contents of the letter dated 09.05.1995 against the Complainant to repudiate the claim vide its letter dated 12.09.1995.

At the cost of repetition, we may note that the consent letter dated 09.09.1994 was signed in the presence of a witness, by the Complainant, the Surveyor and two senior officials of the Insurance Company, and it is evident that on account of persuasion by the Senior Divisional Manager, namely, Bulaki Das, who had also signed the earlier letter, the Complainant had agreed to settle his claim for a total sum of 1,72,500/- as far back as on 09.05.1995. In light of these documents and in the absence of any explanation as to why these documents were signed by the senior functionaries of the Insurance Company, the decision of the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having "a valid driving license at the time of accident", cannot be appreciated, more so, when apparently the said order shows non-application of mind, inasmuch as it was a case of theft of the vehicle and not of an accident as noted in the repudiation letter.

In view of the above, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that despite it all, the Insurance Company has made the Complainant to run from pillar to post since the year 1994 and has dragged him up-to this stage, when both the Forums have returned a concurrent finding of fact insofar as the question of deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company is concerned.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

It is pointed out that a sum of 1,72,500/- is lying deposited in this Commission in terms of order dated 08.07.2016. If that be so, the said amount shall be released to the Complainant forthwith. The balance amount due in terms of the order passed by the State Commission shall be remitted to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization.