Haryana

StateCommission

A/363/2016

SOMVIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

KARTAR SINGH MALIK-1

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      363 of 2016

Date of Institution:      26.04.2016

Date of Decision :       20.07.2016

 

Somvir s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, Resident of Village Samar Gopalpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, 19 Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, through its Divisional Manager, Upper Storey, HDFC Bank, Model Town, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Aftab Singh, Advocate for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

A car bearing registration No.HR-12K-7835 (Tata Safari), owned by Somvir-complainant/appellant, was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/respondent, for the period March 31^st, 2009 to March 30^th, 2010 vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-3). The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.6,92,900/-.

2.      On January 14^th, 2010 the car met with an accident in the area of Sampla, District Rohtak. F.I.R. (Exhibit C-4) was lodged in Police Station, Sampla. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor inspected the car and assessed the loss at Rs.2,70,857/- vide report Exhibit R-6. The complainant alleged to have suffered loss worth Rs.10,12,202/- as per the estimate obtained from M/s Raj Motors, Rohtak. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated February 29^th, 2016 allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,70,856/-, that is, the amount assessed by the surveyor, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, September 26^th, 2012 till its realization and Rs.3,000/- litigation expenses, within one month from the date of order, failing which the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order.

4.      Being aggrieved, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has argued that the car was totally damaged, so the complainant be awarded Rs.6,92,000/-, that is, IDV of the car. In support, reliance has been placed upon the Estimate (Annexure A-5) obtained from M/s Raj Motors and the photographs (Annexure A/8).  

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. The complainant has not examined the proprietor of M/s Raj Motors, from where the estimate was obtained. It is not the case of the complainant that the amount so claimed, was spent by him on the repair of the car. So, mere estimate (Annexure A-5), cannot be taken into consideration. The photographs also show that it was not a case of total damage. In view of this, the report (Exhibit R-6) of the surveyor cannot be brushed aside whereby the loss was assessed at Rs.2,70,856/-.

7.      Having taken into consideration the facts of the case and the report of the surveyor, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation is made out. No case for interference is made out.

8.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 20.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL