ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD vs SURESH KUMAR MASKHARA

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 4.8.94 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 852 of 93 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.

AS this appeal has been presented within the period of thirty days of the receipt of the copy of impugned order by the appellant, it was admitted for hearing and it is being disposed of on merit. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. The complainant had purchased a truck bearing Registration No. DIG 4702 at Delhi under hire purchase scheme after securing loan from the Bank of Madura, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (in short the Bank) and the truck was hypothecated to the Bank. The Bank as financier got the truck insured by the Delhi Branch of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (in short the Insurance Company) the opposite party for the period 11.1.92 to 10.1.93. The complainant however also got the same truck insured at Muzaffarpur Branch of the Insurance Company-the opposite party with effect from 24.1.92 to 23.1.93 on payment of the premium. On 27.9.93 the complainant wrote to the Muzaffarpur Branch of the Insurance Company that as the vehicle had been insured with the Delhi Branch of the Insurance Company for the period 11.1.92 to 10.1.93 through he financier-Bank, the premium amount of one of the policies Rs. 8012/- paid by the Bank may be refunded. The Insurance Company informed the complainant that the premium amount cannot be refunded after the expiry of the period of policy. The complainant, therefore, filed complaint before the District Forum for refund of the premium with 18% interest thereon w.e.f. 24.1.92 alongwith bonus and also compensation for the expenses and mental anguish caused to him due to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company-opposite party.

On being noticed the Insurance Company-opposite party appeared and controverted the claim of the complainant stating that the case is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and that it is the duty of the Bank-the financier to which the vehicle stood hypothecated to get the vehicle insured, the Bank being the real owner of the vehicle for the hire purchase period as the complainant had purchased the vehicle under hire-purchase agreement and that the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the premium after the expiry of the period of the policy and after enjoying the full coverage of the insurance policy for that period. On these grounds the opposite party-Insurance Company sought the dismissal of the complaint.

THE District Forum, however, accepted the case of the complainant and had directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 8,012/- alongwith 18% interest thereon w.e.f. 24.1.92 and to pay bouns amounting to Rs. 2,506/- with 18% interest thereon till the date of their payment and it has also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for their physical inconvenience, financial expenses and mental anguish sustained by the complainant due to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company-opposite party. THE District Forum has further directed the Insurance Company-opposite party to comply with these directions within thirty days failing which the opposite party will undergo imprisonment for six months. THE learned Counsel for the parties were heard. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the impugned order is bad in law because the District Forum has passed a composite order sentencing the opposite party for imprisonment of six months if he fails to comply with the directions of the District Forum within thirty days. Moreover, it has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is not a case of deficiency in service on behalf of the Insurance Company-opposite party and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the Insurance Company-opposite party. As it is evident from the facts stated above the insurance policy taken from the Delhi Branch of the Insurance Company was for the period from 11.1.92 to 10.1.93 and the policy taken from Muzaffarpur Branch of the Insurance Company was for the period from from 24.1.92 to 23.1.93. Hence the period from 11.1.92 to 23.1.92 was not covered by the policy taken from the Muzaffarpur Branch of the Insurance Company and the period from 11.1.93 to 23.1.93 was not covered by the policy issued by the Delhi Branch of the Insurance Company. Hence if any thing unto- ward had happened with the truck during any of these two respective periods covered by only one policy, the complainant could have taken the benefit of that policy the truck being insured under the one policy or the other covering that period. That apart it was not due to negligence on the part of the Insurance Company that the two policies were taken in respect of the same truck. Of course it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that it was deliberately done so by the complainant to take double insurance benefit. We need not record our finding with regard to this submission on behalf of the Insurance Company-opposite party as it might be due to an error on the part of the complainant who obtained the second insurance policy due to communication gap between the complainant and the Bank for which they could be liable inter se. But the blame could not be shifted to the appellant. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of New India Insurance Company v. Krishna Kumar, (1994) 1 CPR 731 in a similar case. Under these circumstances we find and hold that the complainant was not entitled to get any relief and the District Forum has misdirected itself in appreciation of the matter and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) only as cost to the appellant. Appeal allowed with costs.