Haryana

StateCommission

A/438/2017

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TAHAIR HUSSAIN - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No.    438 of 2017

Date of Institution:  11.04.2017

Date of Decision:    01.09.2017

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarwada, Pune-411006 (through its Divisional Manager)

Through its Authorized Person, SCO 158-159-160, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

….Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Tahir Hussain son of Sh. Kamluddin, resident of Village malab, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat.

….Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                            

                

Argued by:                    Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Challenge is to the order dated January 31^st, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mewat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Tahir Hussain-complainant was allowed.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) was directed to pay Rs.1,58,076/- (as per surveyor report after deduction of depreciation and compulsory excess amount) alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of complaint, that is, January 13^th, 2016 till its realization; Rs.2000/- compensation and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of damage of his car bearing registration No.HR27D-9159 in an accident.

2.      The car of the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company for the period April 27^th, 2013 to April 26^th, 2014.  The car met with an accident on January 04^th, 2014.  It was damaged.  First Information Report was recorded in Police Station Nuh.  The Insurance Company was informed. The Insurance Company appointed the surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.1,58,552/-.  Inspite of that, the Insurance Company did not the amount. 

3.      In appeal before this Commission, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that at the time of pre-inspection, reading of the car in the speedometer was 13538 kms. After the occurrence, some installed meter was found by the surveyor, so, the car shown to the surveyor, was not the car, which was insured with the Insurance Company. 

4.      The submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable because the surveyor in his report clearly mentioned the engine number and chassis number of the car, which was the same as mentioned in the insurance policy.  Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 01.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K