Haryana

StateCommission

A/272/2015

BHARTI AXA GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       272 of 2015

Date of Institution:       24.03.2015

Date of Decision :        03.11.2015

 

1.     Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited having its office at shop No.97, Transport Nagar, Panipat.

2.     Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited having its registered/head office at First Floor, The Ferms Icon Survey No.28, Doddanakundi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore Karnataka-37.

3.     Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited having its Zonal Office at 2^nd Floor, SCO 23-24 & 25, Red Square market, Hisar, Haryana all through their authorized signatory Mr. Tusharanshu Walia, Senior Executive, Legal Claim, available at SCO 350-352, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160034.

 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ranbir Singh s/o Sh. Dariya Singh C/o Shop No.8, Dayanand Road, Sanjay Chowk, GT Road, Panipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

 

Present:               Shri Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Amit Khatkar, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated February 2^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat, (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby, complaint filed by Ranbir Singh-complainant/respondent was allowed and opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.3,70,473/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum; Rs.3300/- cost of litigation on account of damage to truck bearing No.HR67-4688 of Eicher make, year of manufacture 2006 in an accident. 

2.      Truck bearing registration No.HR-67-4688 of the respondent/complainant was insured with the Insurance Company-opposite parties for the period from November 15^th, 2010 to November 14^th, 2011. The Insured Declared Value of the truck was Rs.8,50,000/-. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the truck met with an accident on June 4^th, 2011 and was damaged. On being informed, the Insurance Company deputed surveyor who inspected the truck. It was brought to the workshop ‘Bansal Motors’ Sonipat where it was repaired. According to the complainant he incurred Rs.8,52,313/- on the repair of the truck. However, the opposite parties paid Rs.2,13,471/- to the complainant through cheque dated 25^th April, 2013. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the remaining compensation.

3.      The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the complainant was compensated as per the report of the surveyor and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order. Hence, this appeal.

5.      It is not disputed that the truck of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties. It is also not in dispute that the truck was damaged in the accident.

6.      The question for determination is as to for how much amount the complainant is entitled. In this regard, the report of the surveyor has to be taken into consideration. A perusal of the report (Annexure R-2) clearly shows that the truck was badly damaged and it was total loss of the truck.  The truck was insured for Rs.8,50,000/-. It was got repaired from Bansal Motors, Karnal, that is, authorized workshop by spending Rs.8,52,312/- as is evident from Vat Invoice Credit Annexure C-5. The Insurance Company paid only Rs.2,13,471/-. The District Forum relied upon the report (Exhibit R-2) wherein (at page 3 of the report) the surveyor has tick marked the column of ‘Total Loss’ and by giving benefit of 30% depreciation to the Insurance Company, allowed the complaint directing it to pay Rs.3,70,473/- to the complainant. As per appellant/Insurance Company, they have already paid Rs.2,13,471/- and after adding Rs.3,70,473/- made up the total amount to Rs.5,83,944/-, that is, total loss minus 30% depreciation.

7.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum is made out.

8.      Hence, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.4,32,000/- deposited as per order of this Commission, be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 03.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL