Haryana

StateCommission

A/1150/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGAT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :      1150 of 2016

Date of Institution:     02.12.2016

Date of Decision :      06.10.2017

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Registered and Head Office Dere House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC, Bose Road, Chennai.

 

Local Address, 1^st Floor, SCO 2463-2464, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Jagat Singh son of Sh. Fateh Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Chidana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                     

 

 

Present:               Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing this appeal, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated July 26^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Jagat Singh-complainant was allowed.  The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“As a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to appoint some surveyor/loss assessor to get the loss/damage of the jeep assessed and then make payment of 75% of the loss so assessed to the complainant on non-standard basis with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses.

2.      The vehicle bearing registration No.HR69A-7378 was insured with the Insurance Company for the period May 26^th, 2011 to May 25^th, 2012.  On October 19^th, 2011, the vehicle met with an accident.  The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident, there were 22 persons travelling in the vehicle including the driver as find mentioned in the First Information Report (Annexure A-4), which was in violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

3.      Since 22 persons were travelling in the vehicle, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant or not?  The answer is ‘Yes’.  To support the view, reliance can be placed upon Amrita Devi and others Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, IV (2014) CPJ 632 (NC), wherein 25-30 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident.  The Hon’ble National Commission upheld the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission whereby the complaint filed by the owner of the vehicle was dismissed on the ground that 27 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident.

4.  For the reasons recorded supra, in considered opinion of this Commission, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.  According, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 06.10.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK