Haryana

StateCommission

A/928/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULDEEP SING - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      928 of 2015

Date of Institution:      23.10.2015

Date of Decision :       27.11.2015

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Chatar Singh, Resident of House No.842, Gali No.2, Prem Colony, Karnal (Haryana).

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, has questioned the correctness of order dated August 24^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.140 of 2012.

2.      Truck bearing Registration No.HR-45-5751, owned by Kuldeep-Complainant/respondent, was insured with the Insurance Company for the period from April 26^th, 2011 to April 25^th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.17,78,000/-.

3.      On August 12^th, 2011, the truck met with an accident at Chitkara Road in the area of Uttar Pradesh and was damaged. The Insurance Company was informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss of Rs.4,35,000/-. However, according to the complainant, he spent Rs.5,78,726/- on the repair of his truck from Metro Motors, G.T. Road, Karnal. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated January 17^th, 2012, stating that on the date of accident, the vehicle was being plied within the area of U.P. without a valid and effective Route Permit because the validity of the National Permit obtained by the complainant had already expired. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite party contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the fact stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

“…..we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.4,35,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 6.03.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him together with a sum of Rs.5500/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

6.      Indisputably, the truck was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the truck was damaged in the accident. As per the report of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, the loss of the truck was to the extent of Rs.4,35,000/-. The appellant has failed to produce any document to show exclusion clause under which the claim of the complainant was rejected. Thus, in absence of any documentary evidence, the appellant cannot exonerate itself from its liability to indemnify the insured.

7.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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: 27.11.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL