Haryana

StateCommission

A/485/2015

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

Versus

SEWAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      485 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.05.2015

Date of Decision :      12.10.2015

 

1.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Opposite I.B. College, First Floor, City Centre, Panipat.

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Centre, 19 Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballared Estate, Mumbai-400001.

3.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.145-146, above VLCC, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through Shri Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Sewal Singh s/o Sh. Rati Ram, Resident of Village & Post Office Kalri Jagir, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                      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 appellants.

                             Shri R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated March 3^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      Sewal Singh-complainant-respondent was owner of car bearing registration No.HR-02X-2580 of Maruti Swift VDI BS IV make. The car was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, for the period from November 10^th, 2012 to November 9^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) with ‘Nil Depreciation’ benefit. The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.5.00 lacs.  The car met with an accident on September 21^st, 2013 and was damaged.  The Insurance Company was informed. It appointed Surveyor, who inspected the car. The car was brought to the workshop Auto Care, Ambala City. The spare parts of the car were purchased from ‘Amar Sales’ Ambala City for Rs.21,429+5408=26,837/-, vide bill Annexure C-2.  The total amount spent by the complainant on the repair of his car was Rs.63,048/-. The Insurance Company paid Rs.22,000/- only. 

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply pleading that the damage suffered was only of Rs.22,000/-. It was stated that the benefit of ‘Nil Depreciation cover’ could be taken subject to the repairs of the insured vehicle from the Company’s Authorized Dealer.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.41,048/- (63048-22000) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs.2200/- as cost of litigation.

6.      It is admitted case of the parties that the car was insured for Rs.5.00 lacs vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1. It is also not in dispute that the car was damaged in the accident.  A perusal of the Insurance Policy (Annexure C-1) shows that the insured was entitled to the benefits of ‘Nil Depreciation’ cover.

7.      Complainant has placed on record bill Exhibit C-2 issued by Amar Sales amounting to Rs.21,429/- and Rs.5408/- = Rs.26,837/- and bill Exhibit C-3 issued by Auto Care amounting to Rs.36,200/-.  By calculation the amount spent on the repair of the car was Rs.63,027/-.  To rebut this evidence, no credible evidence has been led by the Insurance Company. 

8.      In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.      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 12.10.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL