STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.360 of 2016

Date of Institution: 25.04.2016

Date of Decision: 23.05.2016

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor Palm Courts, Near Maharan Partap Chowk, Gurgaon through its Divisional Manager.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

Nand Lal S/o Sh.Matadin r/o Village Bhora Kalan,Tehsil Farrukh Naar, District Gurgaon.

         …..Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

Present:-    Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

                                      O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.-OP is in appeal against the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (For short ‘District Forum’), gurgaon, whereby the complaint of Nand Lal-complainant has been allowed and OP has been directed to pay Rs.3,94,524/- after depreciation ( as per surveyor report) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Briefly stated the complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. Ford Fiesta Car bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AC-7390, Model 2006 with the OP vide cover note No.109001566226 effective from 23.03.2010 to 22.03.2011 with IDV of Rs.5,25,000/-.  On 28.03.2010 the vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged and in this regard FIR No.145 dated 31.03.2010 was registered.  The estimate towards repair was calculated to the tune of Rs.8,96,131/- by Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. thus, it was a case of total loss.  Since the OP failed to settle the claim, the complainant lodged the claim with the OP alongwith all necessary documents. Even then, the OP failed to reimburse the loss.  Thus, the OP is deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to pay the insured amount with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3. According to the OP, the present complaint was not maintainable as the cover note number 11186 of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. showing insurance of vehicle No.HR-26-AC-7390 for a period of 23.03.2009 to 22.03.2010.  In order to show continuance of insurance, the complainant got the renewal of insurance policy from OP and the OP relied upon the previous cover note provided by the complainant.  On the basis, the OP issued continuous policy of previous cover note, which on verification of said cover note from previous company, was found fake.  In fact, this was not issued from their office, hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 21.01.2011.  However, upon intimation from the complainant regarding the accident and loss to the insured vehicle, the surveyor and the loss assessor Dinesh Kumar Gupta was immediately appointed by the OP.  The surveyor reported that the insured liability in the present case was assessed as Rs.3,94,524/- after depreciation and calculation.  But there was no  deficiency in service on the part of the OP. the learned District forum however rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 05.02.2016.
4. Against this order, the OP has filed appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint  without any legal justification.  The appellant reiterating his submissions as made by him before the district forum contends that they are not liable to pay the claim at all and that there was no deficiency in service on their part.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record.
6. It is evidence on the record that the complainant-respondent had duly got the vehicle insured, paid the requisite insurance premium and renewed the insurance policy up to date.  It was during the currency of the insurance policy that the vehicle met with an accident of which the intimation was promptly given to the insurance company-OP. the surveyor appointed by the OP insurance company has submitted his detailed report assessing the loss to Rs.3,94,524/- after depreciation (as per surveyor report) with interest @ 9% p.a.  The learned District Forum has rightly agreed with the report of the surveyor which has not been challenged by the OP before us in appeal.  Further, the learned District forum has rightly found that the complainant-respondent has not availed any “No claim Bonus” amount on the basis of previous insurance policy. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any legal infirmity in the decision of the learned District Forum and we dismiss the appeal of the OP-insurance with nor order as to costs.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

May 23rd, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                               Judicial Member                                              Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.