Haryana

StateCommission

A/561/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABY MIGLANI - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD GUPTA

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      561 of 2016

Date of Institution:      22.06.2016

Date of Decision :       18.07.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its duly Authorised Officer.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Baby Miglani w/o Sh. Harish Kumar, Resident of House No.1278/28, Arjun Nagar, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Car bearing registration No.HR-12V-1120, owned by Baby Miglani-complainant/respondent, was insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period May 8^th, 2013 to May 7^th, 2014. The car was stolen on November 17^th, 2013. On being informed, the Police registered F.I.R. The Insurance Company was also informed. During the investigation, the car was recovered by the Police, but some parts thereof were missing/stolen. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the car and submitted report (Exhibit R-3) assessing loss at Rs.1,02,000/-, whereas according to the complainant, he spent Rs.1,27,475/- on the repair of his car. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company repudiated the same vide letter 30.01.2014 (Exhibit C-5) on the ground that the car was left unattended by leaving the key in the ignition and that the car was stolen on 17.11.2013 whereas the Insurance Company was informed on 22.11.2013, that is, after five days.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’).  

2.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit C-5) and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated April 5^th, 2016 accepted the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,02,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, 28.07.2014 till its realization; Rs.3500/- litigation expenses to the complainant, within one month from the date of order, failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% per annum.

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal.

5.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the car was left unattended by leaving the key in the ignition and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

6.      The contention raises is not tenable.  No cogent and convincing evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to show that the car was left un-attended by leaving the key in the ignition.  So, in absence of any evidence it cannot be said that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as pleaded by the Insurance Company. Indisputably, the car of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company and it was stolen. It is also not in dispute that the car was recovered by the Police but some parts thereof were missing. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.1,02,000/-, which the District Forum has awarded to the complainant. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

7.      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 18.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL