Haryana

StateCommission

A/749/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

09 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.749 of 2016

Date of Institution: 16.08.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 09.08.2017

 

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot No.6, 1^st Floor, Metro Piller No.81, Pusa Road, New Delhi 110006, through its Legal Manager.

                                      …..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Anil Kumar S/o Sh.Ghrishu Ram R/o village Sundrehti, Tehsil Matanhail, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana).

2.      Indus Ind Bank Jhajjar (Finance Department), through its Manager, behind Bus Stand, Jhajjar, Haryana.

…..Respondents

 

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate counsel for appellant.

Shri A.K.Gehlawat, Advocate counsel for the   respondent No.1.

Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocate counsel for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          As per the complainant, he was insured owner of truck bearing registration No.HR63C-7134 which was insured with opposite party No.1-appellant. The vehicle met with an accident on 14.10.2014 and FIR No.296 dated 16.10.2014 was registered with P.S. Nangal Chaudhary. Intimation was also given to insurance company.  Surveyor was appointed and he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.3,05,223/-. He got repaired the vehicle on 10.11.2014 from Dahiya Truck Body Maker, Rohtak and spent Rs.4,50,000/-.  Claim was submitted, but, insurance company did not pay the amount.

2.      Both opposite parties (O.ps.) filed separate replies controverting his averments.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that as per investigation report, Mr.Anshu was driving insured vehicle. Both the vehicles were damaged from driver side, but, Sunil did not sustain grevious injury comparison to Mr.Anshu.  The accident was not caused by insured vehicle. FIR was registered against another vehicle  and driver of the offending vehicle has caused the accident, so the O.P.No.1 did not pay any compensation to him.

3.      O.P.No.2 alleged that vehicle in question was financed by it. The complainant was under obligation to repay loan amount, but, he did not pay the installments. The complainant was not entitled for any relief from it.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned Distirct Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint   vide impugned order dated 15.03.2016 and directed as under:-

“Hence, it is directed that the respondent No.1 shall make the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of loss/accident i.e. 14.10.2014 till realization of final payment to the complainant through the respondent No.2 being the financer of the vehicle of complainant in the present case. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1. the complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.1 has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by Mr.Anshu and his driving licence was not produced by complainant. As per report of Surveyor, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.3,05,223/-, whereas learned District Forum has allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-, so impugned order be set aside.

8.      This argument is of no avail. There is no document on the file showing that Mr.Anshu was driving  this vehicle at the time of accident. From the perusal of copy of FIR Ex.5, Sunil Kumar was driving this vehicle. There is no evidence contrary to this effect. Further, from the perusal of  bills Ex.P-2 to P-11 complainant spent huge amount on the repair of this vehicle. Taking into consideration these bills, learned District Forum granted compensation to the complainant. Appellant-O.P. No.1 did not produce the report of surveyor before district Forum for the reasons best known to it. Depreciation etc. seems to be on higher side. Learned District Forum has rightly granted the compensation, as mentioned above. So, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However first charge qua this amount will be of O.P.No.2/respondent No.2 i.e. Financer if loan amount is not paid as yet.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 09th, 2017       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.