Haryana

StateCommission

A/422/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM LATA - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.422 of 2015

Date of Institution: 06.05.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 22.09.2015

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-II, Narain complex, Civil road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager. Now through its Authorized Signatory. Archana Aggarwal, A.M. SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.Prem Lata W/o Sh.Sham Sunder Gosain, Resident of 1323, Sector-2, Rohtak.

2.Karan Gosain S/o Sh.Sham Sunder Gosain, Resident of 1323, Sector-2, Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondents

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri J.P.Nahar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Gaurav Khera, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          National Insurance Company Limited (in short Insurance Company)-opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated April 1st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short “District Forum”).  

2.      It was alleged by complainant that  her husband was registered owner of car Maruti Zweift LXI bearing registration No.HR-12-H-3995 insured  with the appellant/opposite party No.1 (O.P.) for the period 06.12.2012 to 05.12.2013.  The insured valued was Rs.2,30,000/-. Her husband died on 25.04.2013. She could not intimate the insurance company regarding the death of her husband as she was in mourning period.  On 07.11.2013 O.P.No.2 Mr. Karan Gosain intimated the police that car bearing No.HR-12H/3995 had caught fire due to mechanical/electrical fault. NCR No.580/2013 dated 08.11.2013 was lodged in P.S. Sadar, Rohtak. One Sanjay also received burn injuries and was shifted to PGIMS Rohtak. The car was fully damaged. She parked her vehicle in the gaurage of Budhwar Auto Mobiles, near Prabhat Vatika, Delhi Road, Rohtak. She submitted the claim form with the opposite party to settle her claim, but, O.P. repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.12.2013. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      O.P. No.1 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.05.2014. O.P.No.2 made a statement before the district forum that complainant was his mother and he did not want to file any reply and admitted her claim.

4.      After evaluating the evidence of the complainant, District Forum directed the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.1,99,000/- (Rupees one lac ninety nine thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.02.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant/O.P.No.1 has filed this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per clause 10 of the insurance policy Annexure A-6 legal heirs of deceased person are to move an application within three months from the date of death for transfer policy in their name otherwise the policy will lapse. In this case Sham Sunder died on 25.04.2013 and no application was moved in time. So complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect. So, impugned order be set aside.

8.      It is the duty of the appellants to prove that terms and conditions were explained to the insured at the time of obtaining the policy as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pabbati Sridevi & Others 2013 (1) CLT 589.  It is specifically laid down therein that unless and until the terms and conditions are explained to the insured at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, they are not binding upon the insured. In case of terms and conditions in very small letters clauses, warranties,  endorsement, etc. It is opined by  Hon’ble National commission expressed in Tata Chemicals Ltd Vs. Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. 558 COL.I,CCL (1996-2005) that small printed matter should be clearly discernible and  draw the pointed attention of the consumer.  It is nowhere mentioned in cover note that insured was made aware about condition No.10 of Insurance policy.  The cover note is issued at the time of obtaining the insurance and insurance policy is sent lateron.  It is nowhere mentioned in cover note Ex.C-1 that if the policy will not be got renewed within three months after death of insured the same will lapse. When this fact is not proved, O.P.No.1/appellant cannot allege that the complainant was not entitled for any relief under condition No. 10 of the insurance policy. 

9.      Learned District Forum granted compensation as assessed by the surveyor in report Ex.C-18. It is well settled that report of surveyor cannot be brushed aside  without sufficient cause and carries value. Hon’ble National Commission has opined in case cited as D.N.BADONI versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I (2012) CPJ 272 (NC) as under:-

“It is well settled law that a Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise which petitioner has failed to do so the instant case.”

The instant case is fully covered by D.N.BADONI’s case (Supra).  The report of the surveyor cannot be brushed aside.   This argument is devoid of any force.

10.    There is no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order dated 01.04.2015.  So the same cannot be set aside.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

11.    The 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/revision if any.

 

September 22nd, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.