Haryana

StateCommission

A/712/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJBIR KAUSHIK - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.712 of 2015

Date of the Institution:31.08.2015

Date of Decision:23.01.2017

 

1.      Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.212-224, Sector-34 A, Chandigarh.

 2.     Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Above HDFC Bank, Near D.Park, Rohtak through Authorized Signatory Sh. Amit Chawla, Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.145-146, Sector-9 C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Rajbir Kaushki S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, R/o H.No.448/27, Khem Nagar, Bhiwani Road, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                                                                .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr. Hitender Kansal, proxy counsel for Mr. P.M. Goyal, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. -OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 24.06.2015, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Rajbir Kaushik- owner of the vehicle,  has been allowed by directing the OPs as under:-

“opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.3,99,500/- (Rupees three lacs ninety thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.07.2011 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant”.

2. Briefly stated, the complainant was registered owner of TATA 207 bearing registration No.HR-56-8789 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP for the period from 27.06.2009 to 26.06.2010. On 20.12.2009 the driver of the said vehicle was returning from Julana and on the way a Neel Gai appeared on the road and while saving it, the vehicle imbalanced and struck against a tree. The DDR No.21 dated 21.12.2009 was reported and the complainant also informed the OP about the accident and the authorized person of the OP asked the complainant to get his vehicle repaired from the authorized repairing agency. Accordingly, the complainant got the vehicle repaired by spending a sum of Rs.6,75,650/-. OPs appointed the surveyor, and did not pay the claim of the complainant despite completing the formalities. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
3. In reply opposite parties pleaded that the Surveyor Anil Kumar Sehgal had surveyed the alleged accidental vehicle after the complainant reported the matter to the OP after 38 days of the accident. This was complete violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the investigations and verifications by the OP, the driver Jagbir Singh was not holding the valid Driving License to ply the above said vehicle carrying the hazardous goods under the class of his license, which was in violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules. On these basis, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Despite this, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OPs and accepted the complaint vide order dated 24.06.2015 by granting the aforesaid relief. 
4. Against the impugned order, the OPs/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is evident that no doubt the accident of the insured vehicle took place on 20.12.2009 and the DDR was lodged on 21.12.2009 yet it is admitted by the complainant, as recorded in the DDR also that Jagbir Singh, driver of the vehicle was carrying 30 liter of diesel oil, which was an inflammable hazardous product and could not be carried by a person possessing a driving license of ordinary class. Meaning thereby, the driver was not in possession of the driving license, which authorized him to carry the diesel in the vehicle involved in the accident. Further, the accident was reported to the insurance company after 38 days which was another violation of the terms and conditions of the policy binding on the complainant. To the same effect is the conclusion arrived by the surveyor in his survey report i.e. there was mis representation of fact on behalf of the owner and the driver  Jagbir Singh, who was not possessing a driving licnece authorizing the drivers to carry hazardous goods.
5. For these reasons, the OPs were justified in law to repudiate the claim of the complainant and the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum is wholly untenable in law. Consequently, we allow the appeal filed by the OPs- the insurance company and set aside the order passed by the learned District Forum Rohtak and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
6. 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.

 

January 23rd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.