Haryana

StateCommission

A/912/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIMALYA HIGH SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

05 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      912 of 2015

Date of Institution:      20.10.2015

Date of Decision :       05.02.2016

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Delhi-Rohtak Road, Bahadurgarh-124507, District Jhajjar, Haryana through its Divisional Manager.

Now through its authorized signatory, Archna Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Himalya High School Silani Gate, Jhajjar-124103 through its Head Mistress Leela Devi.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri J.P. Nahar, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Deepak Kumar-representative on behalf of respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated August 28^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar  (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Himalya High School, Silani Gate, Jhajjar-Complainant/respondent, seeking compensation with respect to the damage of its bus, was allowed. By the impugned order, the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.2,23,244/- to the respondent alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident, that is, April 11^th, 2013 till its actual payment and Rs.2,000/- cost of litigation. 

2.      The bus bearing No.HR-63B-0368, was insured with the Insurance Company with effect from March 31^st, 2012 to March 30^th, 2013. On April 11^th, 2012, the bus overturned and was damaged. Daily Diary Report No.20 (Exhibit P-5) was lodged in Police Station, Jhajjar, on the same day. The Insurance Company was informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.1,28,351.13 vide report Annexure A-7. It was stated by the complainant that in all a sum of Rs.2,23,244/- was spent on the repair of the bus. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated January 8^th, 2013 (Exhibit R-2) on the ground that the complainant was not having Certificate of fitness of the bus.

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the findings of the District Forum on two grounds, viz., on the date of accident the complainant was not having valid certificate of fitness and the compensation granted to the District Forum was on higher side.

4.      A perusal of the Certificate of fitness (Exhibit P-7) shows that it was renewed from April 5^th, 2012 by Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bahadurgarh. The accident took place on 11^th April, 2012. Thus, on the date of accident the complainant was having Certificate of fitness. In view of this, the first contention of the Insurance Company is repelled.

5.      So far as the expenses incurred on the repair of the bus, the complainant  has placed on the record the receipts issued by Haryana Motors, the authorized service station of TATA Motors; Ashoka Auto Mobiles and Jakhar Diesel Service at Jhajjar and Dilbag Heavy Crane Service, Rohtak, whereby the amount spent by the complainant comes to Rs.2,23,244/-.

6.      The report of surveyor (Annexure A-7) has been perused. The estimate prepared by M/s Haryana Motors is also a part of the report (Annexure A-7), but still the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,28,351.13. There is no detail in the report of the surveyor that in what manner the said amount was calculated. In view of this, on the basis of the bills produced by the complainant and duly mentioned by the surveyor in his report, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the amount awarded to the complainant is just and reasonable and no case for interference is made out.

7.      Resultantly, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

8.      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: 05.02.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Nawab Singh President

CL