Haryana

StateCommission

A/997/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    997 of 2015

Date of Institution:    20.11.2015

Date of Decision :     03.08.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, Palm Court, MDI Chowk, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, through Shri Amit Chawla, Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Resident of House No.670/22, Shivaji Park, Gali No.11, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon.

                                      Respondent-complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent-Sanjay Kumar, in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated July 13^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.540 of 2009.

2.      Sanjay Kumar-complainant/respondent, got his vehicle Rhino bearing registration No.HR-99-CS (Temporary)-6424, insured with the Insurance Company for the period December 09^th, 2008 to December 08^th, 2009 for Rs.7,42,467/-. The vehicle was damaged in an accident on December 24^th, 2008. On being informed, the Police registered Daily Diary Report Exhibit C-4. The Insurance Company was also informed. The vehicle was got repaired from Ranil International, Gurgaon, by paying Rs.3,81,769.90 vide bill Exhibit C-6.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the benefits of insurance. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing written version. It was pleaded that at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Sanjay Kumar without holding a valid and effective driving licence, so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,81,769/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization; Rs.25,000/- for harassment and Rs.3100/- litigation expenses.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has urged that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Sanjay Kumar, who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. There was no occasion for the complainant to have changed the name of the driver as both, that Sanjay Kumar and Surender Kumar, were holding valid and effective driving licenses. Photo copies of both the DLs are on the file (Annexure A-6 and C-7). A perusal of the driving licence of Sanjay Kumar (Annexure A-7) shows that the DL holder was entitled to drive Motor Cycle, LMV-NT-Car and LMV-transport. Driving licence (Annexure A-6) of Surinder Singh, shows that it was valid to drive scooter, motor cycle, car, jeep and LTV. In view of this, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being driven by its driver without holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, in this regard is repelled.

7.      The next limb of argument was that the compensation awarded to the complainant is beyond the report of surveyor and the same cannot be allowed.

8.      Indisputably, the surveyor of the Insurance
Company assessed the loss of Rs.89,833/- vide report (Annexure A-5) and the District Forum has awarded Rs.3,81,000/-. A perusal of the record shows that the complainant has placed on the file Bills of Rs.3,81,769/- (Exhibits C-6 and C-7) for repair of the vehicle.  The vehicle was purchased a new one just 15 days prior to the accident. The invoice is on the file which shows that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for Rs.7,46,544/- on 09.12.2008, and the accident took place during the intervening night of December 23^rd/24^th, 2008.  Therefore, even no depreciation of the damaged parts was allowable. The surveyor wrongly assessed the loss of Rs.89,833/- without any valid reasons inspite of the fact that it was a new vehicle. Although assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. The approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3253 of 202, New India Assurance Company Limited versus Pradeep Kumar, decided on 9^th April, 2009.  In view of this, it is held that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.3,81,769/- which he has actually spent on the repair of his vehicle. The District Forum has allowed the claim to the complainant as per the bills produced on the record.  Thus, the order under appeal requires no interference.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal 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 03.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL