Haryana

StateCommission

A/556/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATHU RAM - Opp.Party(s)

RAM AVTAR

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.556 of 2015

Date of Institution: 01.07.2015

                                                           Date of Decision: 08.06.2016

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager,Regional Office, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Nathu Ram s/o Sudhan Singh r/o VPO Kheri Battar, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani.

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri  Ram Avtar, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Shri Jitender Nara, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. and Anr.–OP is in appeal against the Order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jhajjar, whereby the complaint of Nathu Ram - Complainant has been allowed and OP has been directed to pay the insured’s declared value of Rs.8,96,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization, Rs.3000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses.  
2. Briefly stated, the Dumper Truck bearing registration No.HR-61-3857 of the complainant and insured with the OP company vide policy No.261200/2007 dated 08.06.2006 was stolen on 27.12.2006 for which an FIR No.224 dated 28.12.2006 was got lodged with P.S. Beri, but the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on 22.05.2008 ignoring all the documents submitted by the complainant. Aggrieved against this act of the OP, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming the sum assured alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
3. According to the OP, it is denied that the claim form was submitted by the complainant on 22.05.2007 and that the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on 22.05.2008 as alleged. As per the complainant’s version itself, the claim was repudiated in the year 2008, hence the complaint was time barred. The vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 27.12.2006 and FIR was got lodged on 28.12.2006 and he informed the OP company on 01.06.2007. The complainant intimated the company after the delay of more than five months.  Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation.  However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 30.04.2015.
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 has contended that the complainant has not informed the company immediately after the theft of the vehicle and the claim from was not submitted by the complainant in the office of the insurance company. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is evident from the material available on record that the claim form was submitted by the complainant on 22.05.2007 and the same was repudiated by the insurance company on 22.05.2008. This fact stands mentioned in the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. Further it is not believable that a claim filed by the complainant insured person eight years back is still pending with complainant and has not been disposed of one way or the other by accepting or repudiating the same. The Insurance Company has not sent any communication to the complainant requiring him fulfill any additional formalities or to supply some documents. In fact the complainant had already submitted          ex. C-8, C-9, C-11 and Ex. C-13 and C-15 i.e. report of the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., application form dated 09.01.2007, reports of investigation and the R.C. of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. These documents were more than enough to substantiate the claim of the complainant and the non acceptance of the claim of the complainant despite this overwhelming documentary proof is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and also a proof of causing harassment and mental agony to the genuine and poor complainant. Consequently, we do find any merit in the appeal of the Insurance company and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

June 08th, 2016       Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K.Bishnoi,                                                            Member                                    Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                          Addl.Bench              

S.K.