Haryana

StateCommission

A/269/2015

RAM MEHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV KUMAR SAINI

17 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.269 of 2015

Date of Institution: 20.03.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 17.05.2016

 

Ram Mehar S/o Shri Shakud Ram R/o Village Kachhwa District Karnal.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance, through its authorized signatory, Anil  Dhiru Bhai Ambani Group Regional office SCO 212-124 Sector 34-A Chandigarh.

2. Sri Ram Transport Finanace Co. Ltd. SCO No.10, Sector 3, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                      …..Respondents

 

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri R.K.Saini, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          As per complainant, he got his vehicle bearing registration NO. HR 45A-0412 insured from Opposite party (O.P.) No.1 vide policy No.2005792334001840.  Cover note was issued at Karnal.  On 09.09.2009 said vehicle met with an accident. Documents as well as vehicle were taken into custody by the police.  He asked O.Ps. to appoint surveyor to assess the loss and settle the claim.  He also supplied documents required by them, but, to no use. 

2.      O.Ps. filed reply admitting accident but alleged that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) was not having territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint.  He gave intimation about accident on 24.09.2009 and in this way breached terms and conditions of insurance policy.  As he was not entitled for compensation so his claim was repudiated as no claim vide letter dated 10.12.2009.  He failed to submit documents, as mentioned in reply.  In addition thereto O.P. No.2 raised objections about locus standi, misjoinder of the parties and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 04.12.2014 and directed as under:-

 

“Therefore, in view of our discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of 75% of the loss assessed to the  complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.05.2011 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment caused t6o him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that accident took place on 09.09.2009 whereas intimation was given on 24.09.2009. In this way he violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.O-6 and was not entitled for any compensation.  At the most he was entitled for 75% as awarded by district Forum. Surveyor rightly assessed loss to the tune of Rs.13521/- so the appeal be dismissed.

7.      This arguments is of no avail.  As far as the case of information is concerned the complainant cannot deprived of compensation on this ground because it is a case of accident and not of theft.  It is opined by Hon’ble National Commission  in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & others, 2015 (3 CLT 476 that in accident cases if intimation is not given to insurance company immediately it does not affect the right of the insured.  In theft insurer may be deprived of a chance to recover the vehicle, but, in case of accident vehicle is there and can be examined.  As per complainant vehicle was taken into custody by police immediately and there was no question of pilfration.  It is no where alleged by surveyor that due to this reason he was not in a position to assess the loss properly.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and awarded compensation @ 75% relying upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme court expressed in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. OIC Civil appeal No.2703 of 2010 decided on  25.08.2010. In that case driver of the vehicle was not  having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purposes. That is why it was directed that the matter be settled on non-standard basis, whereas in the present case no such question is involved.  Further surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.25785/- but applied depreciation of 40% without any basis. As per cover note Ex.C-11 dated 21.04.2009 the IDV was Rs.2,25,000/-. How the same has decreased to this extent after four months is no-where explained.  It appears that to  favour insurance company surveyor has applied this deduction. So the complainant is entitled for entire IDV of Rs.2,25,000/-. However insurance company will be entitled for salvage.  Impugned order is modified accordingly.

 

May 17th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                      Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench                

S.K.