Haryana

StateCommission

A/1172/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJU - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No  :      1172 of 2016

Date of Institution:     06.12.2016

Date of Decision :      08.09.2017

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Registered and Head Office Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC, Bose Road, Chennai.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, SCO 2463-2464, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Raju son of Om Prakash, resident of House No.297, Ward No.12, Railway Road, Kalayat, District Kaithal (Owner of Insured Vehicle).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                          

 

 

Present:               Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri Sandeep Berwal, Advocate for the respondent

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing this appeal, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties No.1 and 2 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) have challenged the order dated July 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby it directed to pay Rs.1,49,745/- to Raju-complainant on account of damage of his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-64-2433 in a road accident on the basis of the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company.

2.      Firstly, a few admitted facts.  The vehicle was a goods vehicle with sitting capacity of three persons including driver.  At the time of alleged accident, 61 persons were travelling in the vehicle.  Out of them thirty died and twenty suffered serious injuries. 

3.      In view of these facts, whether the complainant was entitled for the compensation as prayed for and awarded by the District Forum?

4.      The answer to the question posed is in negative.  In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2013) 11, SCC, 554, it was found that a barat was being carried in the vehicle, which had been registered as a goods vehicle.  In view of that, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner.  This being the legal position, in considered opinion of this Commission, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,49,745/- to the complainant.  According, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

5.      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, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 08.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK