Haryana

StateCommission

A/135/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JASBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       135 of 2015

Date of Institution:       10.02.2015

Date of Decision :        18.09.2015

 

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

                                                Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Jasbir Singh s/o Sh. Naryan Singh, Resident of Village Dulhera, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Kushal Chand, Advocate appearing for Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Shri Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated November 25^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jhajjar, in Complaint No.113 of 2013.

2.      Jasbir-Complainant-respondent, got his jeep bearing registration No.HR-33E-0250, insured with the Insurance Company, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2 for the period from March 5^th, 2011 to March 4^th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.2,97,000/-.

3.      On July 13^th, 2011, the jeep met with accident while striking against Motor Cycle No.HR-77-1918, in the area of Village Dighal Beri Road, Beri, District Jhajjar. At the time of accident, the jeep was being driven by Sankit son of Tejpal. Due to injuries suffered in the above said accident two persons who were going on the motor cycle, namely Satbir and Ganga Ram, died. The jeep was also damaged. F.I.R. No.157 (Exhibit C-4) was lodged in Police Station, Beri, District Jhajjar. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle of the complainant. The jeep was got repaired. According to the complainant he spent Rs.1,52,262/- on the repair of his jeep. The Surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss at at Rs.67,600/- vide report Exhibit R-11.  However, the Insurance Company repudiated complaint’s claimed vide letter Exhibit C-11 on the ground that the jeep had already been sold by the complainant to Sankit Kumar, who was driving the jeep.

4.      Aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply while reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter.

6.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint issuing direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

“…..it is directed that the respondent shall make the payment of a sum of Rs.1,37,036/- (i.e. Rs.1,52,262/- which he has suffered on account of repair charges of vehicle in question – (minus) 10% depreciation value i.e. Rs.15,226/- )along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of loss/accident i.e. 13.7.2011 till realization of final payment to the complainant. It is further directed that the respondent shall further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the order of the District Forum raising plea that the jeep had been sold by the complainant to Sankit, prior to the date of accident, who was using the said vehicle as a ‘taxi’ and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any benefits of the insurance.

8.      The contention raised is not tenable. There is nothing on the record to show that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Sankit. Merely by executing the Power of Attorney by the insured in favour of a person for day-to-day supervision cannot be treated as sale unless and until the vehicle was not transferred in the name of Sankit. Indisputably, on the date of accident, the complainant was the registered owner of the jeep and complainant lodged the claim, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability to pay the benefits of insurance to the registered owner, that is, the complainant.

9.      So far as the quantum of insurable benefits, the complainant has claimed Rs.1,52,262/- whereas the surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.67,600/- vide report Exhibit R-11. It is well settled principle of law that the report of surveyor is an important document and cannot be discarded unless and until any evidence contrary to it is produced.

10.    In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, the Hon’ble Apex court was pleased to hold, as under  :-

“7. The appellant had appointed joint surveyors in terms of Section 64-UM (2) of the Insurance Act, 1938.  Their report has been placed on the record in which a detailed account of the factors on the basis of which the joint surveyors had  come to the conclusion that there was no loss or damage caused on account of fire, was given  and  it was on this basis that the claim was not  found entertainable. This is an important document which was  placed  before  the  Commission, but the Commission,  curiously,  has not considered  the  report. Since  the  claim of the respondent  was repudiated  by the appellant  on  the basis of the joint survey report, the Commission was not justified in awarding the insurance amount to the respondent without adverting itself to the contents of  the  joint  survey report, specially the facts enumerated therein. In our opinion, non-consideration of this important document has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice  and  vitiates  the judgment  passed by the Commission.  The case has, therefore, to be sent back to the Commission, for a fresh hearing”.

11.    Hon’ble National Commission in D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), held that it is a well settled law that a Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

12.    The complainant has not led any evidence to discard the report of the surveyor and therefore, the complainant cannot be awarded beyond the report of the surveyor. The District Forum fell in error for not appreciating this aspect.

13.    In view of the above, the appeal is partly accepted and the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.67,600/- to the complainant instead of Rs.1,52,262/-. Rest of the order is maintained.

14.    The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

15.    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: 18.09.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL