Haryana

StateCommission

A/1048/2015

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

Versus

AMIT KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

22 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1048 of 2015

Date of Institution:        08.12.2015

Date of Decision :         22.12.2015

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Phool Chand, Caste Ahir, Resident of Village Khorma, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27^th July, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 2011.

2.      After purchasing vehicle Mahindra Maxximo-2011, Registration No.99-DL-Temp-0184 from Shri Mohan Motors-Opposite Party No.2, Amit Kumar-complainant/respondent got it insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1 (appellant herein) for the period March 16^th, 2011 to March 15^th, 2012. On April 3^rd, 2011, the vehicle met with an accident and suffered damage. F.I.R. No.117 dated 04.04.2011, under Section 279,337,427 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station City Narnaul. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and assessed loss at Rs.84,295/-. The complainant got the vehicle repaired from Shri Mohan Motors, Narnaul by incurring expenses of Rs1,14,343/-. He filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 12^th October, 2011 on the ground that at the time of accident, three persons were travelling therein against the approved seating capacity of 1+1.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.      The Insurance Company did not file reply despite ample opportunities given to it.  Even, none appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company at the time of arguments.

5.      On appraisal of the evidence of the complainant, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realisation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

6.      The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, three persons were sitting in the vehicle against the approved seating capacity of 1+1 and since the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, he was not entitled for any benefits of insurance.

7.      It is material to mention here that the Insurance Company neither produced this document before the District Forum nor filed any reply to the complaint. Since, the evidence produced by the complainant remained un-rebutted on record, the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to reopen its case before this Commission without having led any defence. The Insurance Company was afforded ample opportunities by the District Forum to file reply and lead evidence. Therefore, now it cannot be allowed to take this plea before this Commission. The District Forum has already allowed only Rs.1.00 lac as against repair charges of Rs.1,14,343/-.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 22.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL