Haryana

StateCommission

A/423/2016

TATA AIG GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANIK SODHI - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.SHARMA

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      423 of 2016

Date of Institution:      13.05.2016

Date of Decision :       20.10.2016

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 301-308, 3^rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2 Road No.44, near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034, through its authorised officer Sh. Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head North Zone Claims, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Manik Sodhi s/o Sh. Gobind Ram Sodhi, Resident of House No.635, Diwan Nagar, Assandh Road, Panipat.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Nitin Kumar, Agent of TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, C/o Shri Balaji Financial Services, 97, Sectror-25, Transport Nagar, HUDA, Panipat.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Parveen Kumar, Advocate proxy for Shri Anil Kumar Vij, counsel for respondent No.1.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated March 2^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Manik Sodhi-complainant/respondent No.1, seeking compensation with respect to his insured vehicle, was accepted directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“…We hereby allowed the present complaint with a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.3,90,325/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.”

2.      Vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67A-5555 owned by the complainant-respondent No.1, was insured with the Insurance Company-appellant for Rs.7,67,000/- from February 16^th, 2013 to February 15^th, 2014, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-2. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, the vehicle was damaged in accident.  On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted report Annexure R-1 and assessed the loss at Rs.81,794/-. The complainant got repaired his vehicle by paying Rs.3,90,325/- vide bills Annexure C-14 to C-20. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay the amount. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                Notice being issued, the opposite party No.1-Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing written version. It was admitted that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.81,794/- but the complainant did not complete the formalities and for that reason the claim could not be settled. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                The limited case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that old cabin was got fitted by the complainant but bill was issued for a new cabin.  

6.                There is nothing on the record to show that old cabin was got fitted by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has produced bill (Annexure C-20) vide which a new cabin was purchased by the complainant from Swarna Motors, Delhi. This single bill is of Rs.2,59,325/-. The bill includes Rs.28,813/- as Value Added Tax. So the genuineness of the bill (Annexure C-20) cannot be disputed. Only amount actually spent has been allowed.

7.                In view of the above, the impugned does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal 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 20.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL