Haryana

StateCommission

A/513/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.513 of 2015

Date of Institution: 10.04.2015 &

10.06.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 03.03.2016

 

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

2.Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Show Room No.410, Mugal Canal, Karnal-132001.

Both through Rajendra Sharma, Officer-Legal Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Corporate office) E-8 EPIP, RICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Om Parkash S/o Sh.Daya Chand, R/o VPO Gagsina, District Karnal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri V.K.Arya, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Shri Vijay Partap Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It is alleged by the complainant that he got his motor cycle No.HR-05-AA-0616 insured with Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) for Rs.36410/-. The insurance was valid from 08.11.2011 to 07.11.2012.  The said motor-cycle was stolen on 01.12.2011 at Gharaunda, District Karnal. He informed the police on 02.12.2011 and FIR No.478 dated 02.12.2009 was registered in Police Station, Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal.  Intimation was also given to the O.Ps. on 02.12.2011.  Necessary documents were submitted with the O.Ps., but, his claim was repudiated without any reason.

2.      O.P.Nos.1 and 2 filed reply  and it was contended that claim was rightly repudiated as there was breach of terms and conditions of the  insurance policy.  The intimation of theft was given to insurance company on 30.11.2011 stating therein that vehicle has been stolen on 25.11.2011 whereas he lodged the FIR stating that the vehicle was stolen on 01.12.2011. It was further contended that vehicle was left unattended and there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

3.      After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 22.01.2015 and observed as under-

“We accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of sum insured to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.06.2011 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant admitted in his affidavit Ex.OP/3 that one key was left in the motor cycle, it shows that he did not take care of the vehicle and was careless.  He further argued that in claim form Annexure A-4 he mentioned the date of theft as 25.11.2011 whereas according to FIR Ex.OP 2 it was stolen on 01.12.2011. In this way he is not specific about the date of theft.  So he is not entitled for compensation. 

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  Alleged claim form was not produced in evidence before District forum. When vehicle of some person is stolen he becomes perturbed and may not be able to recollect date time etc.  However surveyor submitted report Ex.OP7 wherein the theft is not doubted.  So discrepancy in date is no ground to reject the claim.  Affidavit Ex.OP3 was not put to complainant when he tendered his affidavit in evidence.  To clarify this fact the Ops should have question the complainant about negligence in taking care of his vehicle, so these arguments are of no avail.  

8.      The findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned and based on law and facts and  impugned order dated 22.01.2015 cannot be set aside. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March 03rd, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.