Haryana

StateCommission

A/17/2015

NATWAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                F.A.No.17 of 2015

                                             Date of Institution: 07.01.2015

          Date of Decision:07.12.2016

 

Natwar Singh S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh R/o Ward No.26, Mohalla gorilla, Hathin Gate, Palwal,tehsil and District Palwa.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. B-431, Ist Floor, Neelam Bata road, Opposite Escorts Hospital, Faridabad.

2.      Branch Office, near Bank of Baroda, above Kalra, Tyres, G.T.Road, Palwal,Tehsil and Distt. Palwal.

 

          …..Respondents

 

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                             Mr.Vinod Arya, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It was alleged by the complainant that he got his vehicle, bearing registration No. UP-17-T-2101, insured from the O.Ps. on 25.07.2011 which met with an accident on 12.08.2011 in the area  of Kalindi Kunj, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and was badly damaged. Thereafter he took the vehicle to the workshop of M/s Starling Motor Company and spent Rs.3,58,000/- for it’s repair.  The claim was submitted with the O.Ps., but, they refused to make any payment. So they be directed to pay Rs.3,58,000/- as of repairs besides Rs.60,000/- on account of loss of earnings as the vehicle remained out of service and Rs.One lac for mental harassment etc.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that complaint was not maintainable because there was breach of terms and conditions of agreement. As per his version accident took place on 12.08.2011 whereas information was given on 30.09.2011. The vehicle was hypothecated with  HDFC Bank limited, but, the same was not impleaded as a party. He submitted claim after a very long period.  He did not submit requisite documents, so the claim was repudiated. Objections about concealment of fact, accruing cause of action,  estopple, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated  11.08.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that from the perusal of permits Ex. C-8 and C-9 it is clear that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, so the complaint was not maintainable. The information was given to insurance company after 45 days so he was not entitled for compensation and learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  Copy of FIR Ex.C-3 shows that information was given on the date of accident. There was no delay on his part as far as information to police is concerned.  If information was not given to insurance company immediately it does not mean that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The O.Ps. have miserably failed to show that terms and conditions about written information  immediately. When this clause is not proved right of the complainant cannot be denied. These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.629 of 2015 titled as New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Ors, decided on 03.08.2015 and opinion of this Commission in first appeal No.688 of 2015 titled as United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajbir decided on 14.01.2016. (case law cited by the complainant counsel).

8.       Further there is no evidence on the file showing  that complainant was using this vehicle for commercial purpose. If he obtained tourist permit it does not mean that he was using the same only for this purpose.  More so, the insurance company has insured this vehicle in case of damage and cannot get out of it’s liability. 

9.      As per bill Ex.C-10 issued by M/s Starling Motor Company  he spent Rs.3,23,951/- Ex.C-10 on the repair of this vehicle.  OPs have not produced any evidence contrary to this. So they are liable to pay this amount to the complainant. Learned District forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects, so impugned order is set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,23,951/- to complainant-appellant  alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

 

December 07th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.