Haryana

StateCommission

A/588/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUNNI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

          

                                                                    First Appeal No  :   588 of 2016

Date of Institution:  30.06.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:    08.02.2017

 

 

National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Delhi Rohtak Road, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

 

Now through its authorized signatory Archana Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34A, Chandigarh.

 

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Smt. Munni Devi wife of Sh. Rajbir Singh, resident of House No.3, Ward No.17, Arya Nagar, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar (Haryana).

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Argued by:          Mr. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.

 

          By filing the present appeal, National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated May 02^nd, 2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short, ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Smt. Munni Devi-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to payRs.1,77,970/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident, that is, June 25^th, 2014 till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

2.      Vehicle No.HR-14J-5388 owned by the complainant met with an accident on June 25^th, 2014.  The vehicle was initially taken to Lohchab Motor Company Limited, Bahadurgarh where the surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.59,689/-.  The complainant lodged the claim on the basis of estimate prepared by Lohchab Motor, which she lateron withdrew vide Exhibit R-6.  Thereafter, complainant took the vehicle to GPS Power Systems, Gurgaon and lodged the claim of Rs.1,77,970/- again on the basis of estimate only. 

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the complainant has concealed material facts from the Insurance Company and took her vehicle from Lohchab Motor Company Limited to GPS Power Systems, Gurgaon for repairing and submitted fresh claim.  Once the complainant has withdrawn her claim, she has no right to lodge fresh claim.   

4.      It is not in dispute that vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for the period September 25^th, 2013 to September 24^th, 2014.  It met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.59,689/- vide detailed report (Exhibit R-6).  The complainant withdrew her claim.  Lateron, the complainant got prepared estimate (Annexure A-8) of Rs.1,77,970/-. The complainant failed to prove that she spent Rs.1,77,970/- on the repair of vehicle.  Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the amount was paid to the person, who repaired the vehicle.  Thus, the estimate (Exhibit R-6) relied upon by the complainant carries no weight.   On the other hand, Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, who filed detailed report (Exhibit R-6) assessing the loss at Rs.59,689/-. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the report (Exhibit R-6) of the surveyor and therefore it cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to the contradictory on record.   Hon’ble National Commission in D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), held that a Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

5.      In this view of the matter, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.59,689/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of loss/accident, that is, June 25^th, 2014 till its realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- 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 08.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President