Haryana

StateCommission

A/317/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 317 of 2016

Date of Institution: 12.04.2016

Date of Decision : 05.12.2016

Reliance General Insurance Company, Group Floor, Palm Courts, Near Maharan Partap Chowk, Gurgaon.

Appellant-Opposite party

 Versus

Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o Village and P.O. Khandsa, Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon.                               

                                      Respondent- Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Reliance General Insurance Company - opposite party is in appeal against the order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay 75% of the insured amount subject to fulfillment of requirements by the complainant of terms of the insurance policy and Rs.3100/- as litigation expenses and in the event of amount being not paid within 30 days interest at the rate of 9% per annum will be paid to the complainant.

2.      Balbir Singh-complainant filed complaint with allegation that his car make Hyundai i10 bearing Registration No. HR-26-AR-1439 was insured with the Insurance Company with declared value of Rs.3,30,000/- for the period 14.03.2009 to 13.03.2010 (Annexure-A-1).  On 08.08.2009 Krishan son of complainant while driving the car from Hamidpur to Gurgaon.  At about 11 PM as he reached near village Peepli a Neel Gai came in front of car and as a result of this, car hit against a Tractor bearing No. UP-14-2210 which was parked on the road side. His son suffered fatal injuries and car was damaged. First Information Report (Mark ‘G’) was lodged with Police Station Kotwali Faridabad. The Insurance Company was informed. The claim was lodged with the opposite party. However, the opposite party did not pay the claim.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Notice being issued. The opposite party contested the complaint though admitting that the car was insured and met with an accident however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had wrongly claimed ‘No Claim Bonus’ of 20%.  It was also stated that in the previous year, the complainant has got the car insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and had also received claim.

4.      District Forum after hearing parties allowed the complaint and passed order as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of this order.

5.      Opposite party has come up in appeal

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

7.      The document of complainant being owner of the car and same being insured with opposite party is on file as Mark-‘B’ and intimation to the appellant was given by the complainant. First Information Report as Mark-G and licence of the driver is on file mark as ‘H’.  The only plea raised by the Insurance Company is that the complainant has wrongly claimed No Claim Bonus. No evidence worth the name has been led by the Insurance Company in support of its contention that complainant had claimed any amount from the previous insurer in previous year of insurance. No official was examined from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company in support of their contention in this respect. Mere printed slip without any authentication cannot be accepted as proof to conclude that complainant had received claim from previous insurer during previous policy year.  Thus, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and no interference in the impugned order is called for.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

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

 

 

Announced 05.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President