Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/241/2014

Pawan Bhandari s/o Madan Lal Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins.Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ratnehs Yadav

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 241 /2014

 

Pawan Bhandari s/o Madanlal Bhandari r/o Jaswantgarh Teh. Ladnu Distt. Nagaur

Vs.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Head office 24 Whites Road, Chennai Tamilnadu & ors.

 

Date of Order 9.6.2015

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr.Dharmendra Jain counsel for the appellant

Mr. Shiv Vyas counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

 

2

 

learned DCF Nagaur dated 12.2.2014 by which it dismissed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken an insurance of his vehicle from the respondent company. On 5.2.2011 his vehicle met with an accident at an unmanned railway crossing near Ladnu and his vehicle had been damaged. The company repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant was not vigilant while crossing the railway lines and the accident had taken place due to his negligence. The learned DCF relying on 2012 NCJ 552 ( M/s.Aerolux India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. ) rejected the complaint.

 

We have heard both the counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant was negligent in crossing the railway lines and had collided with the passing train and he was challaned by the railway police for negligent driving before the railway magistrate and the complainant had confessed before the court, therefore, no claim is payable.The learned counsel for the appellant has refuted this argument.

 

3

 

We have considered the arguments and we find that claim cannot be repudiated on the ground that the complainant was negligent or not. In accident cases the question of negligence of appellant has never been considered as the company has to make good the loss sustained by the vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show any condition of the policy which requires that before settling the claim for damage of the vehicle, negligence of the owner/driver would be considered.

 

In view of this we allow this appeal and the impugned order of the learned DCF is set aside and we order that the complainant shall be paid th loss sustained by the vehicle and the amount assessed by the surveyor be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. The company shall also pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm