Haryana

StateCommission

A/136/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEERAJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      136 of 2015

Date of Institution:      10.02.2015

Date of Decision :       14.09.2015

 

1.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Office at R18, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi-24.

BOTH THROUGH Ashraf Ali, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Neeraj Kumar s/o Sh. Harbilas, Resident of Village Bhigan, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellants.

Ms. Nancy Gupta, Advocate with Shri Harbilas-father of respondent-complainant. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated December 16^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat.

2.      Neeraj Kumar-complainant-respondent, got his tractor (Eicher make) insured with the Insurance Company-opposite parties for Rs.2,55,000/- from June 3^rd, 2010 to June 2^nd, 2011, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. On June 6^th, 2011, the tractor was stolen by some unknown person in the area of Village Bhigan, District Sonepat. On being informed, the Police of Police Station Murthal lodged F.I.R. No.144 (Exhibit C-2) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Insurance Company was also informed. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-8) was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, vide order dated Exhibit C-5.   The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor/Investigator. The Investigator investigated the matter and submitted report Exhibit R-5. The Insurance Company offered payment of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant and the same was accepted by the complainant  by executing ‘Indemnity Cum Declaration undertaking’ (Exhibit R-16) and Claim Discharge Cum Satisfaction Voucher (Exhibit R-17). Inspite of the offer made and accepted by the complainant, the Insurance Company did not pay the same. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties-Insurance Company in its reply stated that the complainant did not submit the required documents and for that reason the claim was closed.

4.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties-Insurance Company as under:-

“………we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.two lacs twenty five thousands) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of this order till realization.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company has argued that after obtaining the consent of full and final settlement of the claim, the Insurance Company inquired into the matter and found that the cover note prior to the issuance of the present policy which was stated to have been issued by IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company, was not genuine.

6.      The appellants-Insurance Company did not dispute having insured the vehicle and after getting necessary investigation etcetera done, the settlement in full and final was obtained. Thereafter, it was not open for the Insurance Company to say that the earlier policy was not genuine. The Insurance Company has tried to escape from its liability to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant on one pretext or the other and such a practice of the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to sustain. So, no case for interference in the order of the District Forum is made out.

7.      In view of the above, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 14.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL