Haryana

StateCommission

A/484/2015

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

Versus

SUKHBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

27 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     484 of 2015

Date of Institution:     26.05.2015

Date of Decision :     27.08.2015

 

1.      The General Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Center 19, Wala Chand, Heera Chand Marg, Balard Estate, Mumbai.

 

2.      The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 193 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi.

 

3.      The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

          Through Deputy Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Sukhbir Singh s/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Resident of Village Shekpura Sohana, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated November 12^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Karnal, in Complaint No.213 of 2011.

2.      Truck bearing registration No.HR-45-AT-6127, TATA ACE Magic-BSII make, owned by Sukhbir-complainant-respondent, was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties-appellants, with effect from May 26^th, 2010 to May 25^th, 2011, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-4. The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.3,16,000/-.

3.      On December 6^th, 2010 while the truck was being driven by Manoj-driver, a sudden sparking took place in the engine. Immediately to save his life, the driver jumped down and the truck fell in road side ditches and got burnt. Daily Dairy Report Exhibit C-7 was lodged in Police Station, Sadar Karnal. The Insurance Company was informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and submitted report Exhibit OP-2/C, whereby he assessed the net loss at Rs.3,62,671.55. The claim being filed, the Insurance Company repudiated the same vide letter dated May 13^th, 2011 (Exhibit C-13).

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

5.      The Insurance Company-Opposite Parties, contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the complainant did not submit the required documents and for that reason his claim was closed.

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction as under:-

“…we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 & 2 to make the payment of Rs.3,16,000-00 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.4.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him together with a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The OP No.1 and 2 shall be made the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complaint qua OP No.3 and 4 stands dismissed.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties contends that there was no loss to the vehicle on account of external impact and that the loss was on account of fire which originated because of spark and that any loss occurring due to contractual liability is not covered under the policy. Counsel further contends that as per surveyor, the loss was not covered under the policy.

8.      We have perused the Insurance Policy (Exhibit OP-2/L). Under the heading ‘Section 1-Loss of or Damage to the Vehicle Insured’ the coverage has been extended to:

“1.    The Company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon:

1. By fire explosion self ignition or lightning:
2. Xxx
3. Xxx

…………………”

9.      It is not disputed that while the vehicle was moving, due to spark the vehicle caught fire. The Insurance Policy covers the risk on account of fire explosion self ignition or lightning. So, the loss being on account of fire, the policy covers the risk. The opinion of surveyor that the loss was not covered, cannot bypass the terms of the contract of insurance.

10.    The District Forum has only allowed IDV of the vehicle which was covered under the policy, therefore, this Commission does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.

11.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

12.    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 27.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL