Haryana

StateCommission

A/531/2018

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONIKA JINDAL AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH K. SHARMA

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.531 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 25.04.2018                                                         Date of final hearing:14.03.2023

Date of pronouncement: 29.03.2023

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited through authorized officer Sh.Amit Kumar, Assistant Manager (TP claims), Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Kailash Building, 3^rd Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

                                                                                     ....Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Sonika Jindal W/o Arvind Jindal, R/o H.No.602, Ward No.3, Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra.

2.      Gaurav Goyal (Intermediary/Legal) R/o House No.1312, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                           ...Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.J.P.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 already ex parte.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.     

2.      The present appeal No.531 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.59 of 2016, which was allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has got insured his vehicle Maruti Ritz ZD1 bearing registration No.HR14D-0036 vide NIL DEEP-CAP policy No.2014-V 3414463 FPV dated 17.10.2014 and paid the premium of Rs.13705/- to the OP No.1.  Unfortunately on 15.05.2015, the vehicle met with an accident.  He informed the OPs about the incident. Surveyor was appointed, who conducted the survey on 18.05.2015. The complainant spent Rs.48209/- on the repair of the vehicle, whereas the surveyor reduced the claim of Rs.6645/- instead of Rs.48209/-. Faced with this situation, he got issued legal notice but no reply was ever received by complainant. The complainant requested the OPs to pay  two bills of Rs.41564/-, but to no avail.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence this complaint.

4.      Upon notice, OP filed its written version stating therein that  accident took place on 15.05.2015 and as per the claim form customer stated that “ when he was coming with his wife from Ledare to KKR, on the way, suddenly a motor cyclist in front of him and to save the biker, he turned the car immediately and thus banged into the stone and got damaged. Upon intimation about incident, surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5092/- and same was paid to the complainant. The complainant was not entitled for any other amount. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissing the complaint as prayed for.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra has allowed the complaint vide order dated 18.12.2017, which is as under:-

“In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to make payment of Rs.41,564/- to the complainant. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. The counsel fee is assessed as Rs.,2200/- However no liability is fixed against OP No.2 being the agent of the company. The order be complied within a period of 60 days failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be initiated against OP No.1 and in that case the complainant is entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.41,564/- from the date of order till its final  payment.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.R.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.J.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      It is not disputed that during the continuation of the policy, the vehicle belonging to complainant met with an accident.  It is also admitted that upon intimation, surveyor was appointed, who conducted the survey.  It is also not disputed that the complainant spent Rs.41564/- during repair of his vehicle.  The plea of the appellant was that the complainant was not entitled for Rs.41,564/-, rather as per surveyor report the loss to the car was of Rs.5092/- has already been paid to him.  Perusal of the file shows that several bills were produced by the complainant, which shows that the complainant had spent Rs.22,840/- Ex. C-20, Rs.6645/- Ex.C-6 and Rs.18,724/- Ex.C-7 totaling Rs.48209/- for repair of his vehicle. However, the OP has merely paid Rs.6645/- leaving the balance of Rs.41,564/-.  The appellant has not led any evidence to prove that complainant had not spent Rs.48209/- for repair of his vehicle.  Since the surveyor has wrongly assessed the amount, the complainant was further entitled for the remaining amount.  The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 18.12.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.              File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

29th  March, 2023   Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)