Haryana

StateCommission

A/820/2017

LIVERTY VIDEOCON GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.820 of 2017

Date of Institution: 07.07.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 28.08.2017

 

Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. Having its office at Unit NO.13B & 14 Ground Floor, Palm Court Building, 20/4, Mehrauli Gurgaon road, Sukhrali Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana through its……

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Sanjeev Jindal, R/o H.No.130, Sector 15 Part I, Gurgaon.

 

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Paras Money Goyal, Advocate counsel for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.05.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) vide which the complaint was allowed and directed as under:-

“We direct the opposite party to reimburse the claim in terms of the policy treating the vehicle on total loss basis alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.  The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation charges.”

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that his car met with an accident on 21.04.2016 and was totally damaged. Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.6,30,000/-.

3.      In reply it was alleged by opposite party (O.P.) that the loss was got assessed from licensed surveyor, but, compensation could not be granted to the complainant  because he failed to supply certain documents demanded from him.

4.       Arguments heard. File perused.

5.      Vide letter dated 24.05.2016 O.P. demanded following information:-

“1.     Please confirm details of destination/place visited,  purpose & persons met on the night of accident.

2.      Please provide detailed mobile call statement for mobile No.9716110121 & 9910101291 for the month of April 2016 (if not available for month please provide for one day prior to one day after from the date of accident).” 

6.      When this information was not given the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 22.06.2012.  This information is not related with the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Accident is not denied by insurance company and the loss has also been assessed.   If complainant has failed to tell the name of the person present at the spot and telephone number of driver it does not mean that he violated any condition of insurance policy and was not entitled for compensation.   The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

August 28th, 2017   Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.