Haryana

StateCommission

A/806/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAMBIR - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                      First Appeal No.                    806 of 2016

                                      Date of the Institution:                    05.09.2016

                                      Date of Decision:                  04.10.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, 8^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building 18, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-100001.

Now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

                             …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

Karambir s/o Sh. Raghbir, r/o H.No.1, Village & Post Office Silani, Pana Jalim, Tehsil & District Jhajjar (Haryana).

 

                                      …..Respondent/Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. Nawab Singh, President.

Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                    Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                                     

                                                O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

         

          By filing this appeal, United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated July 13^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Karambir-Complainant was allowed. The Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,26,547/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident, that is, August 7^th, 2012 till realization and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      Complainant was owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63B-4317. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company with effect from October 10^th, 2011 to October 09^th, 2012 vide Annexure A-2. The vehicle met with an accident on August 07^th, 2012. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was heavy goods vehicle, whereas, it was insured under the category miscellaneous types of vehicle. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.3,26,547/- vide report Annexure A-3, the amount which the District Forum has awarded.

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that in the Proposal Form (Annexure A-1) it was not mentioned that vehicle was heavy goods vehicle. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner.

4.      A perusal of Proposal Form (Annexure A-1) shows that make and model type of body of the vehicle is TATA HYWA 2518. In the Registration Certificate (Annexure A-4) against the column Class of Vehicle: it is mentioned ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’ and the weight of vehicle is mentioned 25000 Kgs.  As per Section 2(16) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1986, “heavy goods vehicle” means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms. In the National Permit for Public Carrier (Annexure A-6) type of vehicle is mentioned as heavy transport vehicle. In the Authorisation Certificate of N.P. (Goods) issued by Transport Department, Haryana (Ex.R10) against column type of vehicle; it is mentioned Heavy Goods Vehicle.

5.      With this overwhelming evidence on record, there is nothing to support that complainant had hide anything from the Insurance Company while submitting Proposal Form (Annexure A-1) in which it has been clearly mentioned that make and model type of body of the vehicle is TATA HYWA 2518. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.25,00,000/-. The District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.3,26,547/- as per the report of Surveyor. In view of this, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable and is hereby repelled.

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

October 04th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 U.K.