Haryana

Sonipat

CC/127/2015

PRIYAVART S/O DAYA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

A.P. ANTIL

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.127 of 2015

                                Date of Instt. 08.04.2015 

                                Date of order: 01.04.2016

 

 

Priyavart son of Daya Singh resident of VPO Khewra, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

1.Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Managing Director.

2.Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.178, First floor, Sector 38C, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. AP Antil Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rajiv Kuhar, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of motor cycle bearing no.HR10T/2310 which was insured with the respondents for the period w.e.f. 26.4.2012 to 25.4.2013. Unfortunately the said motor cycle has met with an accident on 11.10.2012 and the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swaraj Mazda Tanker No.HR-55M-7876.  The complainant has sent his motor cycle for its repair to the authorized service station of the respondents, where the surveyor of the company has inspected the motor cycle and prepared the estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.32856/-. The complainant has completed all the required formalities and has also submitted all the required documents, but till date, the respondents have not paid the claim amount to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Rather the complainant has paid Rs.29231/- to the repairer who has repaired the motor cycle of the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint with the prayed to direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.29231/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that  the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the police as at the time of accident, the complainant was not holding an effective driving licence.  The licence was not valid for driving two wheeler.  Hence, the complainant was not entitled to get any claim from the respondents. So, it cannot be said that there was any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has spent Rs.29231/- on the repair of the motor cycle in question which met with an accident on 11.10.2012 during the validity of the insurance policy, but the respondents have not paid even a single penny to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the police as at the time of accident, the complainant was not holding an effective driving licence.  The licence was not valid for driving two wheeler.  Hence, the complainant was not entitled to get any claim from the respondents.

          In the present case, Shri Rajender Kumar, Zonal Manager of Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. has tendered his affidavit deposing therein that the surveyor has assessed the claim of Rs.23500/-.

          In the present case, the complainant has placed on record three bills Ex.C1 to C3 i.e. for Rs.27691/- and Rs.1540/- i.e. total Rs.29231/-.

          Further we have perused the driving licnece (Ex.C6) which shows that complainant was authorized to drive MC  with Gear, LMV (NT) Car only and the original date of issue of this driving licence is 13.07.2011.

          The complainant’s motor cycle has met with an accident on 11.10.2012. So, now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief or not?

          We have perused the surveyor report, vide which the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.23500/-.  As per authoritative decision of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission, surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  So, as per surveyor report, the complainant is only entitled to get the amount of Rs.23500/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.23500/- (Rs.twenty five thousand five hundred) to the complainant within a period of 45 days, otherwise, the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  However, the respondent insurance company is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.one thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  01.04.2016