Haryana

Karnal

248/2012

Tagore Bal Niketan Senior Secondary School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gernal Insurance Company Limited., Mr. Narula Insurance And Finacial Services - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Gaur

27 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.248 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.16.05.2012

                                                          Date of decision:1.04.2015

 

 

Tagore Bal Niketan Senior Secondary School, Karnal through its Principal

 

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                  Vs.

1.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.SCO No.212-214, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

 

2. Mr.Narula Insurance and Financial Services 402, Basement Mugal Canal Karnal   Agent of the Respondent.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.S.N.Gaur  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the OP No.1.

Sh.Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER

           

                        The Complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the OP on the allegations that the bus bearing registration No. HR- 45/8764 belonging to the complainant School was insured with the OP vide insurance policy No. 2005792340001845 cover note No.109000043740 valid w.e.f. 6.7.2009 to 5.7.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 4.3.2010.  The complainant informed the OP and lodged claim with the OP. The OP vide letter dated 3.7.2010 demanded final form report, route permit, driving licence and photocopy of the insurance policy.  Vide letter dated 30.12.2010 the complainant informed the OP that the said documents have already furnished with the office of OP and once again the said documents have been sent and thus the complainant has again sent all the documents to the OP vide letter dated 14.12.2010 but till date the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the OP which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.

 

2.                On notice the OP  No. 1 appeared and filed written statement  raising the preliminary objections that  the this Forum has got no jurisdiction  to entertain and to try the present complaint; that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint was not maintainable. It was also contended that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated because the complainant did not furnish the required documents despite reminders including letter and final letter dated 3.7.2010. The loss reported by the complainant was got assessed by the Independent Surveyor namely Deepankaur Soni who assessed the loss payable by the OP at Rs.5247/- and not the amount claimed by the complainant. Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that  the complainant has filed the present complaint on the allegations that the bus bearing registration No. HR-45-8764 was insured with the OP w.e.f. 6.7.2009 to 5.7.2010 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.3.2010 and the complainant submitted the claim but the OP asked the complainant to deposit certain documents and the complainant informed that all the relevant documents had already been submitted but  the claim has not been reimbursed so far.

 

5.                However, as per the contention of the OP the claim has rightly been repudiated for want of relevant documents and the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.5247/- by the surveyor as shown in report Ex.O2.   It was also contended that since the vehicle was commercial and as such 50% depreciation has been deducted as the vehicle was being used for school purposes.

 

                   Faced with this argument, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon M.C.Mehta Vs.Union of India and others  (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 519 wherein it  has been held that “buses owned by schools were not in strict sense the same as “Commercial vehicles”. It was also held that the said bus was  exempted  from paying tax and as such repudiation of the claim  was illegal.

 

6.                 Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case and I n view of the law laid down in M.C.Mehta,s case (Supra) it has to be held that the vehicle in question was not commercial and as such  depreciation which has been deducted by the OP being commercial vehicle is not  sustainable in the eyes of law. It has come in evidence that the  op  appointed Deepankaur Soni as surveyor who submitted his report Ex.O2 and as per the said report estimated loss has been mentioned as Rs.28900/- .  As per  Ex.C2  the complainant has allegedly paid a sum of Rs.28900/- and as per Ex.C3 he has  paid Rs.23857/-  the details of which has been shown in Ex.C4. Therefore, after going through the evidence and contents of the complaint and evidence on record  the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.28900/- which has been incurred by him in getting the vehicle repaired but the OP has failed to make payment of the said amount on one  pretext or the other and as such there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

7.                          Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.28900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.05.2012 till its actual payment. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.1100/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the   compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 1.04.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-      Sh.S.N.Gaur  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the OP No.1.

Sh.Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 1.4.2015.

 

Announced
dated: 26.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.S.N.Gaur  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the OP No.1.

Sh.Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

             Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 1.04.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.