AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision petition no. 1367/2016 has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 11.01.2016, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1969/2002, Zabbar Siddiqui vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 26.07.2002, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bareilly, in Consumer Complaint No. 197/2001, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.
The Revision Petition No. 1368/2016 has been filed by the same petitioner against the impugned order dated 11.01.2016, passed by the State Commission in appeal no. 2715/2002, Zabbar Siddiqui vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vide which, the order dated 05.10.2002, passed in consumer complaint no. 487/1993 filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.
Since the facts and circumstances in both the cases are almost similar, these petitions are being decided by this common order, a copy of which be placed on each file.
The petitioner Zabbar Siddiqui filed consumer complaint no. 197/2001, saying that he was the registered owner of truck no. UGL 465 for which, he obtained insurance from the opposite party (OP) New India Assurance Company from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2000 by depositing a premium of Rs. 10,558/-. The said vehicle, while going from Jagpur to Bareilly, met with an accident on Bajpur Road near Ajit Farms, 8 km away from Kashipur. The incident took place on 07.05.2000 at 5.00 am and an FIR was lodged with the Police Station at Kashipur. An intimation was also given to the Insurance Company, who sent their surveyor at the place of the incident. As per the complainant, he spent a sum of Rs. 1,17,921/- for the repair of the truck; however, the Insurance Company made payment of Rs. 17,400/- only through cheque dated 30.08.2000. The consumer complaint was filed, seeking payment of the balance amount, Rs. 1,00,521/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum plus compensation on various other counts. In reply, the Insurance Company stated that the assessed amount for repairs was Rs. 22,487.00 from which, after deducting the excess clause etc., a sum of Rs. 17,400/- had been paid as full and final settlement, which was duly accepted by the complainant also.
The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, decided the consumer complaint vide their order dated 26.07.2002 and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal no. 1969/2002 before the State Commission, and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.01.2016, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.
In the second case, involving consumer complaint no. 487/1993, the complainant stated that he had obtained policy from the OP Insurance Company for the same truck valild from 20.12.1991 to 19.12.1992. The said truck met with an accident on 22.02.1992 at around 6.00 am at Pilibhit Byepass and got damaged. The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 47,549/- for the repair of the said truck. The consumer complaint was filed, seeking payment of the said amount from the Insurance Company alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. In reply, the Insurance Company stated that looking at the antecedents of the complainant, the OP Insurance Company cancelled the policy w.e.f. 25.02.1992, giving refund of the policy amount for the unexpired period and information of the cancellation was given to the insured vide letter dated 10.02.1992. However, on coming to know about the cancellation, the complainant made a concocted story about the accident having taken place on 22.02.1992. The OP Insurance Company got an investigation done through a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police. The report of the investigation falsified the accident itself, based on which, the claim was repudiated.
The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, decided the complaint no. 487/1993 vide order dated 05.10.2002 and directed that the Insurance Company should pay a sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant in satisfaction of the claim. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged the same by way of appeal no. 2715/2002 before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.01.2016, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition No. 1368/2016. Revision Petition No. 1367/2016
The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.
It has been made clear in the orders passed by the consumer fora below that the complainant received the claim amount of Rs. 17,400/- in full and final settlement of the claim and that he did not raise any objection while getting the said amount. Moreover, the petitioner has not stated any cogent reason in his petition, based on which, there could be any justification for taking a view different from the view taken by the consumer fora below. It is held, therefore, that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below.
The Revision Petition No. 1367/2016 is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the consumer fora upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
Revision Petition No. 1368/2016
The main point for consideration in the present case is that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim based on the report of the investigation got carried by them. The Insurance Company also stated in their written reply that they had cancelled the policy in question, looking at the antecedents of the complainant. However, the District Forum allowed the consumer complaint and ordered payment of Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. An appeal against this order made by the complainant was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order. A perusal of the grounds of Revision Petition indicates that the petitioner has not stated any fact or position of law, based on which, there could be justification for enhancement in the said amount. It is held, therefore, that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in this order of the State Commission as well. The Revision Petition No. 1368/2016 is also dismissed and the order passed by the consumer fora below upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.