New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Meera Sharma

-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.

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. 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.

In addition to the reports by the two Surveyors and the investigator; petitioner had relied on the Police Report filed before the SDM, the post-mortem report which mentions that "pieces of clothes worn by deceased smelt of petrol like substance"; statement of the brother of the deceased and a news-item published in the Hindustan Times which had stated that the deceased had committed suicide because of huge loss suffered in stock market, etc. to repudiate the claim. The complainant aggrieved thereupon had approached the District Forum who had ordered the relief stated earlier. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission who while confirming the order of the District Forum further imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000. Yet again the petitioner-Insurance Company is before us in revision.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same points which were agitated before the District Forum. He has contended that a pure and simple case of suicide has been held by the Fora below to be a case of accident. In support of the contention, he has pointed out that the Surveyors appointed by the petitioner and the report of the investigator who inquired into the incident, clearly bring out that it was a case of suicide by the insured. Relying on clause 4 of Section (ii) of the policy, he has contended that while the insured was required to have taken full care and caution to safeguard the Motor Car; in the case in hand, he has opted to burn the car in the process of committing suicide. LEARNED Counsel has further contended that there is no evidence that the insured made any effort to escape from the fire or struggled himself to save his life. Since the inquest report states that it was a case of suicide, the consumer Fora below have wrongly held that there was no evidence. In this regard, the learned Counsel as also referred to the statement of the brother of the deceased before the investigator as also the press report appearing in the Hindustan Times. The Counsel therefore contends that orders passed by Fora below are based on wrong premise and need to be set aside. LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has contended that the orders passed by Fora below do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Both the Fora have arrived at the same finding and conclusions. He contends that the orders passed by Consumer Fora below being fully within their jurisdiction and justifiable, no interference is warranted at revisional stage. He has therefore submitted that revision petition be dismissed with cost. We have perused the evidence on record. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the State Commission and the District Forum have proceeded on the wrong premise that there was no evidence to prove that it was a case of suicide. In support thereof, he has relied mainly on the report of their investigator and the report published in the newspaper. He has also referred to the report of the Police Authorities before the SDM. Further, he has referred to statement made by the brother of the deceased before the investigator and finally on the statement made by one Jamuna Prasad who was watchman in a house opposite the road on which the incident occurred.

WHILE the learned Counsel has tried to draw support from these references, we find that all these pleas had been advanced before the District Forum. The District Forum in its order has discussed the evidence and their pleas in great detail and given full justification as to why they have held that the factum of suicide does not stand proved. Similarly, the State Commission has dealt with the matter at length and held it to be too far-fetched to claim that the deceased had intention to cause damage to the car by committing suicide for facilitating the legal heirs to claim losses. We are in full agreement with the views expressed by the Fora below. We are considering the petition in our revisional jurisdiction. It is not for us to reappraise the evidence at this revisional stage. Learned Counsel has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or any jurisdictional breach by the Fora below which would warrant our interference. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Revision Petition dismissed.