Haryana

StateCommission

A/829/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.SAINI

21 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No    :   829 of 2015

Date of Institution :   30.09.2015

Date of Decision   :   21.10.2015

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager.

                   Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Churia Ram, House No.104, Ward No.3, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

Respondent-Complainant

 

                            

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Paul S. Saini, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

United India Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated September 03^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by Mukesh Kumar-complainant was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“8.     Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the complaint and order that the OP is liable to pay the complainant Rs.1,09,910/- (1,06,410/- as per surveyor report + Rs.3500/-, the surveyor fee).  The OP is also liable to pay Rs.5000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the commencement of this order till its payment...”

 

2.      Complainant got his truck bearing registration No.HR64-5066 insured with the Insurance Company for the period August 06^th, 2012 to August 05^th, 2013.  On June 05^th, 2013 the truck met with an accident and damaged. Insurance Company was informed.  The Insurance Company appointed the surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.1,06,410/-.  The complainant submitted his claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as “No Claim”.  The complainant did not submit the requisite documents despite repeated reminders.  During investigation, it was found that Mangal Singh was driving the truck and the complainant had not submitted the driving license of Mangal Singh.   

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that truck was being driven by Mangal Singh and not by Shamsher Singh.  In support of the contention, reliance has been placed upon Goods Receipt issued by Pal Transport Company wherein name of the driver is mentioned Mangal Singh.  It is also pleaded that Shamsher Singh was named as a driver because Mangal Singh was not having a driving licence. 

5.      To arrive at a decision that Mangal Singh was driving the truck at the time of alleged accident on the basis of goods receipt is not tenable because Goods Receipt was issued on June 01^st, 2013 whereas accident took place on June 05^th, 2013, that is, after four days of the issuance of the Goods Receipt.  Not only that as per complainant, truck was being driven by Shamsher Singh and in contrary thereto, except Goods Receipt no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company.  It is pertinent to mention here that District Forum has awarded the amount of compensation as assessed by the Surveyor.  In view of this, there is no illegality or irregularity discernible in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  Thus, the appeal is dismissed.    

6.      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 21.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK