AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal by the claimant against rejection of the complaint alleging deficiency in insurance service.
CASE of the complainant is that he is owner of a Trader which met with an accident on 29.11.1987 just day after risk was covered by the insurer for one year on 28.11.87 by a comprehensive policy. After accident complainant lodged the claim with the insurer. Surveyor was deputed pay the insurer who assessed loss at Rs. 30,000/-. He made correspondence with complainant for settling claim in respect of spare parts lost. Be that as it may insurer did not communicate its final decision in respect of the claim made to it. Inspite of issue of lawyers notice and registered notice, alleging deficiency in service on account of negligence of the insurer, com plaint was filed in the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. Case of insurer in reply to the complaint is that the vehicle was carrying passengers and accordingly, the same is a breach of the conditions of the policy for which complainant is not entitled to get compensation. There is no statement as to how the claim of the complainant was dealt with by the insurer and why it was not repudiated immediately after it was known that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the loss on account of. breach of termission the policy.
District Forum considered the materials and came to the conclusion that accident being at a time, when the vehicle was used for carrying passengers, complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
IN the impugned order District Forum has not examined whether absence of the intimation to the complaint of the decision in respect of his claim was justified and in case it is not justified whether it is a deficiency in service and in case it is a deficiency in service whether it is on account of negligence. IN case it is found that the silence was in account of negligence, whether complainant had any suffering is also a matter to be considered. A Redressal Agency under the Consumer Protection Act is mainly concerned with the aforesaid question since it is not the Forum to be the Appellate Authority of the person rendering to service to find out whether decision of such person in matter and manner of rendering service. Where there is negligence in rendering the service as undertaken to be performed for which a consumer has suffered Redressal Agency can award compensation as provided under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Actions and inactions of persons rendering service to a consumer are the main consideration. Whether there is merit in the claim of an insured is matter which would be material for determination of the quantum of compensation. It goes without saying that every consumer is entitled to get information of the result of his claim. His right for other actions flow from such intimation. Intimation is a part of the service undertaken to be performed by the insurer. Premium paid also include this duty to be performed. Merit of the claim has also to be considered by a Redressal Agency.
SINCE further materials are required to be filed by the both the complainant as well as the opposite parties for examination of the question of deficiency in service and negligence, we set-aside the order and remit the complaint back to the District Forum for fresh consideration of the complaint. In result appeal is allowed as indicated above. Appeal allowed.