Haryana

StateCommission

A/736/2015

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

Versus

SATPAL - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No :    736 of  2015

Date of Institution:      08.09.2015

Date of Decision          :      27.11.2015 

  

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, A-10-14, Indira Place, Near Gaurav Tower, Jaipur at present E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Satpal son of Gordhan, resident of V.P.O Kapoori, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                            

                                                                            

For the parties:   Mr. V.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) has filed the instant appeal against the order dated July 14^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by Satpal-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.1,35,590/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident, that is, January 09^th, 2011 till realization and Rs.2000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Complainant got his vehicle bearing No.HR66A-3320 insured with the Insurance Company for the period April 30^th, 2010 to April 29^th, 2011.   On January 09^th, 2011, it met with an accident and damaged. F.I.R No.5 dated January 10^th, 2011 lodged with the Police Station Beri.  The complainant spent Rs.1,97,682/- on the repair of the vehicle.  The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.

3.      Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one Raj Kumar son of Kanwal Singh.  As per surveyor report, there was loss of Rs.1,35,589/- to the vehicle.  The complainant was not entitled to any claim.  

4.      Admittedly, vehicle was in the name of complainant.  Insurance Policy was also in his name.  The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the F.I.R was lodged on the statement of Raj Kumar, who stated that on January 09^th, 2011 he was driver of the said vehicle.  Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest on the date of accident.   

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company in view of the fact that Certificate of Registration and the Insurance Policy was in the name of complainant at the time of accident.  It has been clearly stated by Raj Kumar in his statement purported to have been made at the time of recording of F.I.R that he was driver of the said vehicle.  So, it cannot be said from any angle that complainant sold the vehicle to Raj Kumar.  This being so, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.  As such, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.

6.       The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

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

 

Announced 27.11.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK