Haryana

StateCommission

A/683/2014

United India Insurance Company Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Munni Devi - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.683 of 2014

Date of the Institution:04.08.2014

Date of Decision: 19.12.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd., D.O. Panipat, Raj Guru Market, near Bus Stand through its Manager, through its Regional Manager, through authorized signatory of Chandigarh Regional Office Smt. Sunita Sharma.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Munni Devi, W/o Sh. Ramesh Baniwal, resident of village Bhapra, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sukaam Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Ltd.-OP is in appeal against the order dated 06.06.2014 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Munni Devi has been allowed by directing the OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Briefly stated, according to the complainant, she is the registered owner of TATA Indica and year of manufacturing is 2009. The said vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy No.1120003112P000405821. The Policy was valid from 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2013 and the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.2,50,000/-. On 10.07.2012, the vehicle met with an accident as it struck with a stray animal and thereafter, with the divider of the road of sector 12, Karnal. The vehicle was totally damaged in the accident and was not in a position of being repaired. The husband of complainant lodged the DDR bearing No.22 at police post Sector 12 Karnal. The complainant also intimated the OP about this accident and lodged the claim with the OP by supplying the relevant documents. But the OP vide letter dated 30.01.2013 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Contesting the complaint, the OPs pleaded that as per meter reading shown 1,50,000/- kilometers, the vehicle had covered approximately 150 k.m per day during this period. So the vehicle in question was used as commercial vehicle. Hence, the complainant was not entitled for the relief claimed by him. according to them, the complainant had concocted a false story that the insured vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, as the driver Ramesh Beniwal of the vehicle did not receive injury. On going through the report of the Surveyor and Investigator, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP vide letter dated 30.01.2013. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 06.06.2014 granting the aforesaid relief.

4.      Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas a raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evidence that the vehicle was duly insured when it met with the accident and the report of the same was sent to the Police and authorities concerned promptly. The damage to the vehicle was duly assessed by the surveyor appointed by the OP, who has also corroborated the version of the complainant regarding the extent of damage to the vehicle. On the other hand, the OP has only made a bald statement that the vehicle was being run approximately 150 K.M per day, which according to the OP proved that it was being used for a commercial purpose. Beyond this, no other evidence oral or documentary has been produced by the OP to substantiate their plea. Therefore, the stand of the OP is clearly after thought to justify the repudiation of the claim. We are therefore, of the considered view that so far as the finding of the learned District Forum regarding the genuineness of the claim is concerned, the same is correct and we are in full agreement with it. However, so far as the amount awarded by the learned District Forum is concerned it appears that the salvage value of the vehicle which comes about Rs.80,000/- has not been reduced from the total amount awarded by it. We, therefore, modify the claim by awarding only Rs.1,70,000/- (IDV value minus salvage value) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. The complainant shall be entitled to retain the salvage of the damaged vehicle.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

December 19th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench