NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1497/2012

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. NAVDEEP SINGH & M. S. KAPOOR

16 Oct 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2012 in Appeal No. 36/2012 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Jeewan Bharti Building, Cannought Place,
New Delhi
Delhi
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. HARINDER SINGH
S/o Sh Gurdev Singh, R/o h.No-424 sector-33-A
Chandigarh
Chandigarh
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Harinder Singh, In person
Mr. Jasvinder Singh, (relative)

Dated : 16 Oct 2012
ORDER

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below, i.e., order dated 02.12.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh, and thereafter order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 36/2012, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant seeking compensation towards the insurance claim of an insured vehicle with direction to insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Limited notice was issued to the respondent as to why going by the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the respondent / complainant should at best be settled on on-standardbasis, i.e., by paying 75% of the I.D.V. , i.e., Rs.1,80,000/-, for which the car was insured. 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person. The respondent does not dispute that though the insured vehicle was registered as a private vehicle but was being used for hire purposes (as a taxi) at the relevant time when the vehicle was stolen. Since there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by using the insured vehicle for the purpose of hire / reward, we are of the view that the fora below have erred in allowing the complaint in full and passing the impugned order. In our view, the claim of the complainant at best could have been settled by the insurance company on on-standardbasis following the GIC guidelines and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of mlendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)], 3. In the result the revision petition is partly allowed. We direct the petitioner insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the respondent / complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 1.1.2011 till the date of payment besides a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 
......................J
R.C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S.K. NAIK
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.