Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/509/2015

Cholamandalams Gen.Ins. Co. Ltd. through its Constituted Attorney/Authorised Signatory - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suresh Yadav s/o Moti Ram Yadav - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Phakat

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 509 /2015

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. regd.office at E 52 ARG group Building, Chitranjan Marg,C-Scheme,Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Suresh Yadav r/o village Radwa Post Sihali Kala Tehsil Mundawar Distt. Alwar & ors.

 

Date of Order 11.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Sandeep Pathak counsel for the appellant

Complainant-respondent no.1 present in-person

Mr.V.B.Mathur counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur 4^th dated 5.2.2015 wherein Rs. 1 lakh extra has been allowed to the complainant.

 

The contention of the Insurance Company is that as per the policy conditions only on 100% disability Rs. 2 lakhs could be awarded but as per medical board certificate the disability was only 70% and they have rightly paid Rs. 1 lakh.

 

Per contra the contention of the complainant -respondent is that he was driver and admittedly his one leg has been amputed meaning thereby he was disabled permanently and completely. Hence, as per policy condition the court below has rightly allowed him in total Rs. 2 lakhs.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

The complainant-respondent was under insurance coverage with the appellant and his one leg was amputed and

3

 

these facts are not dispute. Policy conditions have also been placed on record which shows that Rs. 2 lakhs were admissible only on the amputation of both legs or both hands etc. but there is also another clause in which if disability is 100% then also Rs.2 lakhs are payable. Here in the present case admittedly the complainant respondent was a driver and when his one leg was amputed, it was total and permanent disability for him hence, the court below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

Under the Consumer Protection Act the interpretation should have been made for the benefit of the consumer and here in the present case his 70% disability has rightly been termed by the court below as complete disability. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm