Haryana

StateCommission

A/202/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       202 of 2016

Date of Institution:      09.03.2016

Date of Decision :        30.03.2016

 

1.      Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur-302022 (Rajasthan).

2.      Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 410, 1^st Floor, MCM, Karnal.

3.      Both through  

          Office; E-8, EPIP RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur-302022 (Rajasthan).

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Manoj Kumar son of Shri Ram Sarup, resident of Village Bhaini, Police Station Babain, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Gurnam Singh son of not known, resident of Village Surajgarh, District Kurukshetra, now working as an Insurance Agent of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited at Village Babain, Sub Tehsil Babain, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

…….Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

  

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present:               Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellants

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The instant appeal filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) calls in question the correctness of the order dated December 10^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.599 of 2011. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“10.   So, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay the insured amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 22.11.2011 till its realization.  However, no liability is being fastened on the opposite party No.3 who is a simple agent of opposite parties No.1 & 2.  This order should be complied within a period of two months, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.”

 

2.      Manoj-complainant got his motorcycle No.HR-07M-6476, insured with Insurance Company for the period March 19^th, 2011 to March 18^th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.25,000/- The motorcycle was stolen on September 10^th, 2011. F.I.R. No.81 dated September 10^th, 2011 was lodged in Police Station, Babain, District Kurukshetra. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was not settled. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the complainant left the motorcycle unattended and violated the condition No.5 of the insurance policy. 

4.      Indisputably, the motorcycle was stolen on September 10^th, 2011 and FIR was lodged on the same day.  The Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company in his report has merely stated that the complainant has parked his motorcycle without taking the ignition key, which has no admissibility under any law.  Thus, there was no violation of Condition No.5 of the insurance policy.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims.

5.      In view of the above, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

6.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,645/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 30.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK