Haryana

StateCommission

A/316/2015

SRI KRISHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM SINGH

02 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.316 of 2015

Date of Institution:06.04.2015    Date of Decision:02.05.2016

 

Sri Krishan S/o Sube Singh, R/o Village rohat, Tehsil and Distt. Sonepat.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional At Atlas Road,Sonepat through its Divisional Manager, (Insurer of Vehicle NO.HR46H-6272).

         …..Respondent

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

 

Present:-     Mr.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. Sri Krishan – complainant is in appeal for modification of the the Order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat whereby his complaint has been partly allowed.  
2. In brief, the complainant was the owner of vehicle No.HR46H/6272 and the same was insured with the respondent for Rs.10,50,000/- for the period w.e.f 17.05.2009 to 16.05.2010. During the intervening night of 29/30.05.2009, the said vehicle met with an accident in the area of PS Kamalganj, Faruknagar (UP) and was badly damaged. DD report No.16 dated 30.05.2009 was registered with concerned police station and the complainant also informed the OP – respondent. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor – Mr. Aaya Ram Gupta appointed by the OP submitted the survey report to the respondent, assessing the loss of Rs.2,46,234/-. However, when the complainant visited the office of the respondent and submitted his documents, the insurance company did not settle the claim. The complainant, thereupon approached the Insurance Ombudsman, but his claim was closed by the Insurance Ombudsman vide order dated 08.02.2011. Aggrieved against this the complainant approached the District Forum claiming the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- alongwith interest and the damages for harassment and mental agony etc.   
3. In reply, OP pleaded that the claim filed by the complainant before the Insurance Ombudsman was closed on 08.02.2011 due to non production of the vehicle for re-inspection. Several letters were written to the complainant to produce the vehicle for re-inspection, but he failed to comply with this order. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation. Thereupon, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by granting the following relief:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.2,46,234/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization”.

 

4. Against this impugned order dated 04.02.2015, the complainant has come up in appeal before us and has vehemently reiterated the contentions raised before the District Forum. In nutshell the appellant contends that the car was insured with the respondents for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- and the complainant was entitled for the grant of the total insured amount. On the other hand, the OP – respondent has relied upon their same stand i.e. the appellant was not entitled to any whatsoever as he failed to produce the vehicle for re-inspection.
5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also          gone through the record. So far as the re-inspection of the vehicle is concerned, the stand of the OP is wholly untenable, as the vehicle was properly inspected by the surveyor before assessing the loss and submitting the detailed report. But as the law is settled that report of the Surveyor is binding on the Consumer Fora while assessing the loss and granting the compensation, we have no reason to differ from the report of the Surveyor and the conclusion of the District Forum. However, the learned District Forum has neither considered nor granting any compensation so far as mental loss and agony suffered by the appellant is concerned nor has any amount been awarded by way of costs of litigation. Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a lumpsum amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the relief already granted by the learned District Forum.  With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

 

May 02nd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.