Haryana

StateCommission

A/56/2016

SPINDERJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

JAI PAL GUPTA

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.56 of 2016

Date of Institution: 15/18.01.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 30.08.2016

 

Spinderjit Singh S/o Sh.Amarjeet Singh, R/o Village Daulatpur, Post Office Mathana, Tehsil Thanesar,Distt. Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Reliance General Insurance company Limited, Registered office 19, Reliance Centre,Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001.

2.      Reliance General Insurance company Limited, SCO No.97, 2^nd Floor, Prem Nagar,Ambala City, at present SCO NO.135-136, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.

3.      Reliance General Insurance company Limited, through its Branch Office, Pipli-Kurukshetra Road, Near Pooja School, Pipli.

                                      …..Respondents

 

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

                             Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                                                                            

Present:              Shri J.L.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                             Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that his car bearing registration No.HR-06Q-0013 met with an accident on 11.12.2010 and FIR No.454 dated 12.12.2010 was registered to this effect.  He got the car repaired from Shivam Automobiles, Radaur  and spent Rs.60,220/- as mentioned in bill dated 08.03.2011, but, opposite parties (O.Ps.)-Insurance company repudiated his claim without any reason. 

2.      Respondents-O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was inordinate delay in giving intimation about accident, which took place on 11.12.2010.  After receiving information on 02.02.2011 letter dated 21.03.2011 was sent to complainant to the effect that he violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy and was not entitled for compensation.

3.       After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Kurukshetra (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 01.12.2015 and directed as under:-

          “We accept the present complaint and direct the  opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.38,493/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest at the rate of @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 13.07.2012 till its realization.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that  he spent Rs.60,220/- whereas District forum has granted Rs.38,493/- only. So he be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.60,220/- with the interest @ 18% alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment etc.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant has failed to point out any shortcoming in the report of surveyor Ex.R-2.  Surveyor assessed the loss after taking into consideration the depreciation  etc. as per policy Ex.R-2. Insurance company can assess depreciation  at the rate mentioned in policy. So it cannot be opined that learned District Forum wrongly placed reliance upon the report of surveyor, but, the District forum awarded interest on the lower side and also did not award compensation qua mental harassment, litigation expenses etc. In these circumstances the rate of interest qua the compensation is increased to the extent of 9% per annum from the date mentioned in impugned order dated 01.12.2015.  The complainant  is also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- qua mental harassment and  litigation expenses etc. Impugned order is modified to this extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 

August 30th, 2016       Diwan Singh Chauhan                        R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench