Haryana

StateCommission

A/81/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARMENDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   81 of 2016

Date of Institution: 27.01.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:   19.02.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022, having through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Dharmender Kumar son of Chhaju Ram, resident of Village Khorda, District Jhajjar.

Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                            

Present:              Mr. Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing this appeal, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated November 02^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Dharmender-complainant was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “5.     In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 who did not make the payment of amount of genuine claim of complainant.  Therefore, it is directed that the respondent No.1 shall make the payment of a sum of Rs.1,45,150/- as assessed by the surveyor vide its report Ex.R-1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of alleged theft, that is, 30.07.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant.  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 respondent No.1.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

 

2.      Complainant got his vehicle No.HR63A-1532 insured with the Insurance Company for the period January 01^st, 2012 to December 31^st, 2013.  On July 30^th, 2012 the vehicle met with accident.  Daily Diary Report (DDR) No.13 was recorded on July 31^st, 2012.  The complainant submitted his claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled. 

3.      Admittedly, on July 30^th, 2012 the vehicle met with accident and DDR was recorded with the Police on the very next day, that is, July 31^st, 2012.  The Insurance Company appointed its surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.1,45,150/- vide report (Exhibit R-1). In the absence of any error in the report (Exhibit R-1) or ill motive of surveyor, the Insurance Company is not expected to reject the genuine claim of complainant. The surveyor assessed the loss certainly find it to be genuine. The Insurance Company cannot itself challenge the report of its own surveyor, who was appointed under the statutory provision of the Insurance Act. Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

4.      In this view of the matter, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 19.02.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K