Haryana

StateCommission

A/1509/2017

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI HARYANA KURUKSHETRA SANATAN DHARAM GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. NAHAR

22 Nov 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1509 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 11.12.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 22.11.2018

 

National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Ist Floor SCO No.155-156, Commercial Urban Estate-1, Hisar through its Divisional Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Shri Haryana Kurukshetra Sanatan Dharam Girls Senior Secondary School, Nagori Gate, Hisar, through its authorized person/Joint Secretary Shri Brij Bhushan Jain age 64 years.

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Shri J.P.Nahar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri J.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondent (Already ex parte).

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.1509 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 02.11.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”) in complaint case No.106 of 2017, which was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case as per the complainant-respondent are that complainant’s school was registered society having registration No.HR012201401026 .  Sh.Brij Bhushan Jain was the joint  Secretary of the complainant  society. The complainant school was registered owner of bus bearing registration No.HR 39C 3763.  The bus met with an accident on 10.10.2016.  Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss of Rs.2,26,884/- after deducting salvage of Rs.18,000/-.   As per complainant’s survey report, the total loss of the vehicle was Rs.3,86,836/-.  The vehicle was got repaired from M/s Vipin Motors Pvt. Ltd. Hisar, who issued the bill of Rs.3,86,836/-.  Claim filed by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 21.02.2017 on the ground that complainant school was not having permit for plying the bus in the area of village chikanwas and Siwani Bolan. The RTI office issued the permit for village Siwani Bolan, Mill Gate, Government Colony, Bahbalpur.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

3.      In its written version, apart from raising preliminary objections, regarding the accruing cause of action,  locus standi, non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction maintainability of the complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On merits, it was alleged that  the surveyor appointed by the insurance company has assessed the loss of damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,26,884/- after deducting Rs.18,000/- as salvage value.   Insurance company denied that complainant spent Rs.3,86,836/- on the repair of the vehicle. The vehicle was being plied on the authorized route for which it was having no route permit where the alleged accident took place.  As per the report dated  29.12.2016 of Secretary, RTA Hisar no name of Siwani Bolan was found mentioned in the route permit. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Hisar allowed the complaint vide order dated 02.11.2017 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to respondent, to pay Rs.3,98,836/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint  i.e. 03.04.2017 till payment.   Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment and mental agony etc.” 

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.J.P.Nahar, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.J.S.Saini the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      It has been argued by Sh.J.P.Nahar the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was being plied on the un-authorized route for which the complainant was not having valid route permit where the alleged accident took place. As per the report dated  29.12.2016 of Secretary, RTA Hisar no name of Siwani Bolan was found mentioned in the route permit.

9.      It has been argued by Sh.J.S.Saini  the learned counsel for the respondent that RTA office issued the permit for village Siwani Bolan, Mill Gate, Government colony Bahbalpur etc. and RTA office, Hisar confirmed that said permit is also issued for Siwani Bolan and Siwani Bolan is also known by village Simani and in the revenue record the said village is written as Simani and in the general the name of the village is Siwani Bolan.  The insurance company wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground of permit of complainant.

10.    Since, the surveyor has assessed  the loss of the vehicle to the tune of R.2,26,884/-, whereas the complainant on his own spent Rs.3,98,836/-  for repair of vehicle.  In D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise.

11.    There is no evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor and therefore due weightage has to be given to it. So it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay Rs.2,26,884/- to the respondent-complainant.   

12.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal  is partly accepted, the impugned order is set aside. By allowing complaint, the insurance company, is directed to pay Rs.2,26,884/- to the respondent-complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint  till its realization.  Remaining order passed by the learned District Forum would remain the same. With the above modification, appeal stands disposed off.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

November  22nd, 2018                                      Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.