Haryana

StateCommission

A/632/2017

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIPUN JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUNDRA

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.632 of  2017

Date of the Institution:23.05.2017

Date of Decision:27.07.2017

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Local Office # 4693, Sector-13, Toshan Road, Hisar, now through its 303-310, 3^rd floor, Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Nipun Jain son of Sh. Suresh Jain, resident of House No.872, Shahid Bhagat Singh Market, Uklana Mandi, District Hisar (Haryana).

 

                                                                              .….Respondent

 

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Amit Kundra, Advocate for the appellant.

                            

                  

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    It was alleged by complainant that his car bearing registration No.HR-20W-5570 was insured with opposite party (in short “OP”) for Rs.4,00,000/- and policy was valid from 04.07.2013 to 03.07.2014. On 09.09.2013 said car met with an accident and was damaged badly. Authorized dealer of car assessed loss to the tune of Rs.5,64,987/-. Claim was submitted with OP, but, the same was repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle went to partner Pankaj Jain and he was not having insurable interest therein. It was told to the surveyor that Pankaj Jain was his partner and at the time of settlement of account it was agreed to transfer this car in his name, but, that did not mature till the date of accident and car remained with him. OP be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest and other relief.         

2.                In reply it was alleged by OP that accident took place on 09.09.2013, whereas information about accident was given to it on 18.09.2013. As the car fell to the share of Pankaj Jain, complainant was not having insurable interest therein. So, his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.      Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short ‘District Forum’) allowed complaint vide order dated 28.03.2017 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.4,00,000/- insured amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing the complaint i.e. 13.03.2014 till payment.  Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses etc.”

 

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP has preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                It was alleged by learned counsel for the appellant that during investigation by surveyor it was stated by complainant that the car fell to the share of Pankaj Jain and he was in possession of the same. This fact was also can admitted by Pankaj Jain in his statement. In this way complainant was not having insurable interest and his claim was rightly repudiated. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this fact, so impugned order be set aside.

7.                This argument is of no avail. It has nowhere came on the file that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Pankaj Jain. At the time of settlement of account it was decided that let the car be given to Pankaj Jain but this settlement did not materialize . So, it cannot be opined that complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident. From the perusal of registration certificate as well as insurance policy it is clear that same were in the name of complainant. As per surveyor the liability of insurance company was to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- which is more than 75% of the vehicle. In this way District Forum has granted IDV to the complainant. However, insurance company will be entitled to retain the salvage. With these observation the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      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, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

July 27th, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

R.K.