Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/222/2014

Universal Sampo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Bhagauti Devi w/o Hari Lal Meena - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Tongawat

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 222 /2014

 

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.

Vs.

Mrs.Bhagauti Devi w/o Late Harilal (since deceased) for her Ramvilas S/o Late Harilal

 

Date of Order 15.6.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr. J.K.Agarwal counsel for the appellant

Mr.Anil Gupta counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Dausa dated 15.1.2014 by which it allowed the complaint.

2

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the truck no. RJ 29 GA 1163 was insured with the appellant company. This truck met with an accident on 2.5.2011 and a FIR was lodged with the Dausa Police Station and the Insurance Company was also informed of the incident. The complainant's husband who had died on 18.8.2012 after the accident submitted the claim before the company which was not settled. This complaint was filed by Smt.Bhagauti who was the wife of Harilal who also died during the pendency of the complaint and his son Ramvilas was substituted in the complaint in her place. The learned counsel for the appellant company has submitted before the learned DCF that claim was repudiated on the ground that this vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident. This contention was rejected by the learned DCF holding that Permit No. 9896 was valid upto 23.4.2014 and claim could not have been repudiated on this ground.

 

During the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that in fact the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had not produced any fitness certificate of the vehicle but the learned DCF has mentioned in its judgment that the claim was repudiated on the ground of permit. The learned counsel has submitted that this

3

 

case may be remanded back to the DCF and objection regarding fitness certificate may be considered.

 

The learned counsel for the respondent has refuted this argument. He has submitted that the appellant company has not filed any reply before the learned DCF, no documents were produced before the DCF and no repudiation was either sent to the complainant or was produced before the learned DCF. He also argued that the company has not appointed any surveyor to assess the loss nor any surveyor's report has been produced before the learned DCF. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us two judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in RP No. 2976/2006 (United India Insurance Co. Vs. Trilok Kaushik) and RP No. 969/2011 ( Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Valsa George ) in which it was held that non-production of fitness certificate or permit is fatal for the claim.

 

We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels. The appellant company has not appeared before the learned DCF and has not placed on record any repudiation letter or produced other documents for which the claim was rejected while before the learned DCF the objection

4

 

regarding permit was taken and during appeal the objection regarding fitness certificate has been taken. The appellant company cannot be allowed to take different stand at different levels. When the company has not submitted any written reply to the complaint, no objection in this regard can be considered. The learned DCF has allowed the complainant the amount which he spent on repairs of his vehicle . Since the company has not appointed any surveyor or produced any report of the surveyor, we find no discripency in the order of the learned DCF. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and is hereby dismissed. The order of the learned DCF be complied with within one month. The amount deposited by the company before the learned DCF may be released immediately to the complainant and the balance amount shall be paid by the company to the complainant.

 

 

Member Presiding Member

 

nm