Ransingh Rajawat vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 06.10.2010 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in appeal no. 2164 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 27.08.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhind (MP) ( in short, ''the District Forum '').

THE petitioner had approached the District Forum with a complaint primarily against respondent 1 - New India Assurance Company Ltd., (Branch Office, Bhind) which was the insurer of the Motor Vehicle (truck) owned by the petitioner/complainant with the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of respondent 1 which was the opposite party 1 (OP 1) before the District Forum while Divisional Manager, Auto Finance Company (a Division of Eicher Motor Ltd.,) was the OP 2 before the District Forum, being the financier of the truck purchased by the petitioner/complainant. The truck was stolen on 24.04.2005 during the validity of the insurance policy (22.03.2005 to 31.03.2006). The petitioner/complainant reported the theft to the Police Station concerned which registered the crime. After investigating the matter the police submitted a Final Report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind on 21.10.2005. The Petitioner/complainant has also filed his insurance claim with respondent/OP 1. However, the claim was repudiated. By its order dated 15.05.2008, the District Forum directed the respondent/OP 1 to settle the claim on non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the sum insured (Rs.6,34,454/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of repudiation till payment and cost of Rs.1000/- and deposit the said amount with the District Forum for payment to the complainant. Respondent/OP 2 was however, absent from these proceedings before the District Forum and was treated ex parte. After this order was passed by the District Forum respondent/OP 2 went up in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, in turn, remanded the matter back to the District Forum by its order dated 23.10.2008 on the limited point whether the amount of insurance claim awarded to the petitioner/complainant should be paid to respondent/OP 2.

BY its order dated 27.08.2010, the District Forum modified its earlier order dated 15.05.2008 and directed that the amount deposited by the respondent/OP1 (insurance company) with the District Forum in accordance with its directions in the preceding order shall be released to respondent/OP 2, because the amount of loan advanced by respondent/OP 2 to the petitioner/complainant outstanding on the date of deposit of the awarded amount by the insurance company was considerably higher than the amount so deposited.

IT was against this order that the petitioner/complainant went up in appeal before the State Commission, with the result, already noticed above. I have heard Mr. Murari Lal Gupta, on behalf of the petitioner/complainant, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, on behalf of Insurance Company (respondent/OP 1) and Mr. Rahul Malhotra on behalf of respondent/OP 2 - the Financing C ompany.

THE main point urged by Mr. Gupta is that the outstanding amount of loan and interest outstanding owed by the petitioner to respondent 2 is less than the insurance claim amount deposited by respondent 1 with the District Forum in accordance with its order dated 15.05.2008. On the other hand, on behalf respondent/OP 2 Mr. Malhotra has produced the detailed calculations of the loan advanced and instalments paid according to which the total amount of loan on interest outstanding as on 28.02.2005 was Rs.6,03,534/- which was considerably more than the amount awarded by the District Forum and deposited by respondent/ OP 1 insurance company with the District Forum.

MR . Gupta was given an opportunity to submit a rejoinder to the calculations furnished by Mr. Malhotra. Accordingly, he filed, inter alia, statement of payments made by the petitioner/complainant from time to time. In the course of hearing, it was pointed out by Mr. Malhotra that the calculations furnished by Mr. Gupta giving the details of payment made by the petitioner/complainant included the sum of Rs.1,55,270/- which the petitioner/complainant paid as his "margin money " towards the cost of the truck. On the other hand, the loan advanced, as admitted by the petitioner/complainant was Rs.7,11,824/- (principal) Rs.1,43,086/- (interest), i.e., total of Rs.8,54,910/- to be paid over a period of 36 months. The fact that the principal amount was Rs.7,11,824/- is borne out by the copy of the calculations and receipt dated 18.03.2004 furnished by Mr. Gupta himself. The receipt is for Rs.1,55,270/- clearly shows that this payment was for the margin money, i.e., the purchaser ''s own contribution to the cost of the truck. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the order dated 27.08.2010 of the District Forum is justified and so is the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 of the State Commission affirming the order of the District Forum.

AS a result, this revision petition fails and is dismissed as such, with no other as to costs.