Haryana

StateCommission

A/320/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM PARTAP - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No          320 of 2016

Date of Institution:      12.04.2016

Date of Decision :       12.05.2016

 

1.      Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Industrial Area, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its authorized signatory.

 

2.      Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 410, First Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal through its Divisional Manager. 

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ram Partap son of Hariram, resident of #28, Old Gurudwara, Assandh, District Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

                            

Present:               Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellants

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and another (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated January 01^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by Ram Partap-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.48,802/- on account of damage of truck of the complainant in a road accident and Rs.5500/- as mental agony & harassment to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

2.      The complainant got his truck bearing No.HR67-2773 insured with the Insurance Company for the period March 07^th, 2012 to March 06^th, 2013.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.5,50,000/-.  On March 16^th, 2012 the truck met with an accident. The complainant spent Rs.1,15,000/- on the repair of the truck.  The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the truck was insured as goods carrying commercial vehicle but was being used for carrying passengers for hire and reward at the time of accident.  Thus, the complainant violated the condition limitations as to use of the policy.

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

5.      Indisputably, the truck met with an accident on March 18^th, 2012.  The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the truck was being used for carrying passengers on hire and reward basis at the time of accident.  No other violation was pointed out by the Insurance Company.  Merely because one or two labourers were sitting in the truck for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods, it cannot be stated that truck was being used for carrying passengers at the time of accident and as such there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. So, the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company.

6.      In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

7.      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 12.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK