Haryana

StateCommission

A/834/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKSHAY DEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.834 of 2015

Date of the Institution:18.09.2015

Date of Decision: 20.09.2016

 

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kaithal, through its Branch Manager, Kaithal, now, through its authorized signatory of Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector-17-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Akshay Deep Singh S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o House No.160, Sector-19-HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.R.C. Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      New India Assurance Company Limited - OP is in appeal against the Order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Akshay Deep Singh - Complainant has been allowed and OP has been directed to pay Rs.1,85,579/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.

2.      Briefly stated the complainant got his vehicle Tata LPT-909 bearing registration No.HR-64-6107 with the OP vide policy No.35360431110100002713 valid w.e.f 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012. The vehicle met with an accident while going from Ladwa to Kurukshetra and got badly damaged. The driver of the vehicle Ramdhan S/o Sh. Mewa Singh was holding a valid licence No.61164 dated 27.11.1986 originally issued by the Licensing Authority Hyderabad (A.P). This licence was later renewed by Licensing Authority, RTA, Kaithal valid upto 09.07.2014. The complainant got the vehicle repaired on basis whereon, he lodged the claim of Rs.2,28,319/-+Rs.3000/- as expenses for Crain loading with the OPs by submitting all the necessary documents. But the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.09.2012 on the ground that they could not trace in Hyderabad the issuance authority of the original Driving License of Ramdhan. Thus, the OPs were deficient in service and the complainant claimed the repair charges of Rs.2,31,319/- along with compensation and litigation expenses. 

3.      In reply, OPs submitted that just after the receipt of intimation regarding the alleged accident of the vehicle in question, the company with all promptness registered the claim and T.P. Singh and Co., an independent surveyor and loss assessor was appointed for final survey. The Surveyor after thorough survey of the vehicle submitted his report assessing the actual loss at Rs.1,85,579/-. Regarding the Driving Licence, the OPs could not find the identity of the issuing authority in Hyderabad, but the renewal of the license at Kaithal was admitted in their letter dated 29.08.2012. OPs on the above basis, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, but the learned District Forum rejected their pleas and accepted the complaint vide order dated 10.08.2015.

4.      Against this Order, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification and the OP is not liable to pay the claim. Further, the competent authority had rejected the claim vide letter dated 08.08.2012 with the observation that on verification the Driving Licnece of Ram Dham was not found issued by any of the four Licencing Authorities situated at Hyderabad. The impugned order was, therefore totally wrong and the appeal deserves should be allowed.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

6.      A perusal of the record clearly shows that the vehicle had been insured with the OP and the accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance Policy. Moreover, the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, which was inspected and the loss assessed by the Surveyor. The Surveyor of the Company assessed the damage to the vehicle at Rs.1,85,579/-. It is further evident from the OP’s own document dated 29.08.2012 that the driving license No.61164 of the driver was renewed by the license authority, RTA, Kaithal, which was valid up to 09.07.2014. Meaning thereby that when the accident took place on 28.01.2012, the driver was in possession of a valid driving license. The law stands settled on the subject that the assessment made by the Surveyor has to be honoured and accepted by the Civil Courts and Tribunals under the Consumers jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.1,85,579/- - the amount assessed by the surveyor. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

September 20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.