Haryana

StateCommission

A/494/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJAIB SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

          

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   494 of 2015

Date of Institution:  01.06.2015

                                                                   Date of Decision:    04.12.2015

 

 

1.      Shriram General Insurance Company limited, E 8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

 

2.      Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Opposite Karnal Truck Union, Karnal.

 

          Both through Raj Dev Tripathi, Assistant Manager Legal, Shriram General Insurance Company, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

 

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

Versus

 

Ajaib Singh son of Sh. Sher Singh, c/o Vikas Chopra, resident of 422/7, Krishan Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:              Mr. V.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Shriram General Insurance Company limited and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) have challenged the order dated March 04^th, 2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short, ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Ajaib Singh-complainant was allowed.  For ready reference operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “7.  Therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case we hold that assessment of the loss to the extent of Rs.35,900/- was whimsical and not sustainable in the eyes of law rather we hold that the complainant was entitle to be reimbursed to the extent of Rs.1,25,790/- subject to admissible depreciation as per law alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.01.2013 till its actual realization.  The complainant is also held liable to Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses.  The present complaint is accepted accordingly.  The OP No.1 and 2 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order….”

 

2.      Complainant was owner of truck No.HR65-5574.  The truck was insured with the Insurance Company from March 24^th, 2012 to March 23^rd, 2013.  On May 02^nd, 2012 it met with an accident and damaged.  The Insurance Company was informed.  The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.35,900/-. The complainant requested the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.1,25,790/- spent by him on the repair of the vehicle.       

3.      Indisputably, truck was insured with the Insurance Company for the period March 24^th, 2012 to March 23^rd, 2013.  It met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. To prove the loss caused to the truck, complainant placed on record photocopy of estimate (Exhibit C-4 to C-7) from where it is not proved at all that the complainant spent Rs.1,25,790/- on the repair of the truck.   Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the amount was paid to the person, who repaired the truck.  On the other hand, Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, who filed detailed report (Annexure A-3) assessing the loss at Rs.35,900/-. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the report (Annexure A-3) of the surveyor and therefore it cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to the contradictory on record.   Hon’ble National Commission in D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), held that a Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

4.      In this view of the matter, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.35,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, January 10^th, 2013 till its actual payment and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 04.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K