Haryana

StateCommission

A/615/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANTOSH - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                      

                                       First Appeal No.           615 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution        22.07.2015

                                                 Date of Decision                   07.01.2016

 

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 325, IInd Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula (Insurer of Jeep Bearing No.HR68A-5864).

 

Now through its authorized signatory Vikas Chadha, Deputy Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17D,Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

1.      Santosh aged 37 years, wife of Sh. Sultan

2.      Mamta aged 18 years, d/o Sh. Sultan

3.      Sanjeev aged 15 years, s/o Sh. Sultan

4.      Suman aged 12 years, d/o Sh. Sultan

5.      Gaurav aged 9 years, s/o Sh. Sultan

          Respondents No.3 to 5 being minor through their mother cum natural guardian Smt. Santosh

          All residents of House No.1444, Indira Colony, Sector 17, Panchkula.

Respondents-Complainants

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                               

 

For the parties:   Mr. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellant.

                             None for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

 

          By filing the present appeal, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (Insurance Company) has challenged the order dated June 05^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by the complainants was allowed. The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.2 lac on account of personal accident claim of Sultan Singh deceased alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of the claim; Rs.10,000/- compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses in respect of damage to vehicle No.HR68A-5864, to the complainants.   

 2.     Sultan Singh (since deceased) got his vehicle No.HR68A-5864 insured with the Insurance Company from June 13^th, 2012 to June 12^th, 2013 vide Annexure A-7.  The vehicle met with an accident on May 28^th, 2013.  Sultan Singh died in the accident and vehicle was totally damaged.  Smt. Santosh, widow and four minor children of Sultan Singh submitted motor claim form (Annexure A-3) before the Insurance Company on May 28^th, 2013 mentioning therein that the vehicle was totally damaged.  The Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The complaint was accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the Insurance Company as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.  

4.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the impugned order on the ground that no surveyor was appointed to assess that the vehicle was totally damaged and Sultan Singh was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainants.

5.      The submissions made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company are not tenable in view of the fact that in paragraph four of the reply, it has been categorically stated by the Insurance Company that after receiving the intimation, Surveyor was appointed, who submitted the report on March 18^th, 2014.  So, it cannot be said that surveyor was not appointed.  So far as driving license No.7394 of Sultan Singh is concerned, the Insurance Company sought the report from Registering Authority, Farukhabad but it was stated that record was not available.  Thus, it cannot be said from any angle that Sultan Singh was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident.  As such, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.

6.       The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

7.      The complainants are, however, directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the vehicle and transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

January 07th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

U.K