Haryana

StateCommission

A/1050/2015

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

Versus

M/S THE NAYA BASS COOP. TRANSPORT SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No :    1050 of 2015

Date of Institution:      08.12.2015

Date of Decision          :      04.01.2016

  

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

 

2.      Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 10217, SCO No.138, Ist Floor, Rare Portion, Sector 17, Commercial Belt HUDA, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

          Both through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

M/s The Naya Bass Co-operative Transport Society Limited, House No.703/21, Kailash Colony, Rohtak through its President Ajay sonof Sh. Kapoor Singh.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

For the parties:   Mr. V.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing the present appeal, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged order dated September 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by The Naya Bass Cooperative Transport Society Limited-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.80,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint, that is, November 08^th, 2013 till its actual realization and Rs.2500/- litigation expenses.  

2.      Complainant got its vehicle bearing No.HR46C-3132 insured with the Insurance Company for the period April 21^st, 2011 to April 20^th, 2012.  On November 29^th, 2011, it met with an accident and damaged. The complainant spent Rs.1,51,792/- on the repair of the vehicle.  The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.

3.      Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.80,900/- but the same was not paid because the vehicle was plied on the road without valid fitness certificate on the date of accident.  The complainant was not entitled to any claim.  

4.      The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the complainant had plied the insured vehicle on road knowing fully well that the permit had expired on the date of accident.  Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest on the date of accident.   

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company in view of the fact that on expiry of permit on October 25^th, 2010, complainant had applied for its renewal vide receipt Exhibit C-3 and renewal of permit was under process at the time of accident.  This being so, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.  As such, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.

6.       The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- 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 04.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK