Haryana

StateCommission

A/134/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.MADAN

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      134 of 2015

Date of Institution:      09.02.2015

Date of Decision :       21.08.2015

 

New India Assurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager Branch Manager, G.T. Road, Sonepat, now through Sh. R.N. Gupta, Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, S.C.O. No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Rajinder Singh s/o Sh. Ram Chander, Resident of Village House No.713, Sector-14, Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                           

Present:              Shri Gauravdeep, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Dinesh Soni, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated  October 31^st, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, whereby complaint filed by Rajinder Singh-complainant (respondent herein) seeking benefits of insurance with respect to his insured truck which was burnt during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.One Lac in lump sum against the loss and amount of Rs.1,58,819/- which the complainant has spent on repair of his vehicle. Accordingly, we hereby directed the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) in lumpsum to the complainant”.   

2.      Rajinder Singh-complainant, got his truck bearing registered No.HR-69-9016, insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, from November 27^th, 2011 to November 26^th, 2012. The Insured Declare Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.10,50,000/-. On January 29^th, 2012 the truck broke down near Petrol Pump of Village Dubaldhan, District Jhajjar. The driver of the truck went in search of a mechanic to get the truck repaired. When he returned, he found that one Asu son of Netar Ram and other miscreants had stolen the battery of the truck. Also, they put the truck on fire. F.I.R. No.22 (Annexure C-3) dated January 30^th, 2012, under Sections 435,379,34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Beri. The Insurance Company was informed. However, the Insurance Company repudiated complainant’s claim vide letter dated December 20^th, 2012 (Annexure C-4) stating therein that the truck was left un-attended in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      The issue for consideration before this Commission is as to whether or not the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating complainant’s claim?

6.      The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the complainant has violated the terms of the policy by leaving the truck un-attended.

7.      It is not disputed that the vehicle was locked and parked near Petrol Pump. So, the vehicle being parked near Petrol Pump was certainly under the care and custody of the officials of Petrol Pump. It cannot be said to have been parked at a deserted place. The vehicle was set on fire and suffered damage.  The complainant had submitted the bills Exhibits C-14 to Exhibit C-25, for repair amounting to Rs.1,58,819/-, which also include Rs.2500/- crane charges. The District Forum allowed a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only by deducting Rs.58,819/-, which though not deductable. The District Forum has already taken care to protect the Insurance
Company and therefore no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

8.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 21.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL