Haryana

StateCommission

A/1036/2015

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH - Opp.Party(s)

V.MALHOTRA

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

First Appeal No  :      1036 of 2015

Date of Institution:        04.12.2015

Date of Decision :        25.04.2016

 

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Suresh s/o Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of Village and Post Office Beri, Tehsil Beri and District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Arvind Sethi, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated August 10^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Suresh-Complainant/respondent, was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.2,13,647/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident, that is, November 14^th, 2012 till realization and Rs.2000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Truck bearing registration No.HR-63B-7004, owned by the complainant, was insured with the Insurance Company for the period September 29^th, 2012 to September 28^th, 2013. The Insured Declared (IDV) Value of the truck was Rs.6,65,000/-.

3.      During the intervening night of November 13^th/14^th, 2012, the truck was parked near the house of the complainant in Village Beri, District Jhajjar. Some unknown vehicle struck against the truck, due to which it was damaged. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor, who inspected the truck. The complainant got the truck repaired from Bhatia Auto Store, Rohtak and incurred Rs.2,13,647/- vide bill Exhibit P-8. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 25^th September, 2013 (Exhibit P-9) on the ground that the truck was being plied without a valid and effective permit. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the truck was being plied without a valid and effective permit and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. So, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant qua the damage of the truck.

5.      The contention raised is not tenable because at the time of accident, the truck was parked near complainant’s house in Village Beri, District Jhajjar and some unknown vehicle caused accident resulting in damage to the truck in question. Facts of the case, as stated above clearly indicate that the accident did not take place on account of any act or omission on the part of the driver/owner of the truck in question. In fact, the accident took place when the truck was stationary near complainant’s house. It was only on account of some unknown vehicle hitting the truck during the night that it suffered damage. It is also not in dispute that the truck in question was a new one having been purchased on October 1^st, 2012 vide Sale Certificate Annexure A-12. It has not yet been put into operational use for any purpose, therefore requirement of permit has not arisen yet. In this view of the matter, repudiation of the complainant’s claim was not justified. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

6.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 25.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL