Haryana

StateCommission

A/496/2015

RAJBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK VERMA

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    496 of 2015

Date of Institution:    01.06.2015

Date of Decision :    01.12.2015

 

Rajbir Singh s/o Sh. Jawahar Singh, Resident of Village Theh Newal, Tehsil Guhla, now residing near HDFC Bank, Goal Colony, Kaithal Road, Cheeka, District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Karnal Road Opposite Indira Gandhi College, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Head Office 24, white Road, Chennai-6000014.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of un-successful complainant is directed against the order dated April 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.      Rajbir Singh-complainant/appellant, got his jeep bearing registration No.HR-09B-7717, Bolero SLX, insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/respondents, for the period from October 21^st, 2009 to October 20^th, 2010 vide policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.4.00 lacs. On July 9^th, 2011, the jeep was stolen by some unknown person when it was parked in front of the gate of the house. The complainant informed the Police of Police Station City Jind. The police registered F.I.R. No.444 dated July 10^th, 2011 (Exhibit C-1). On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who investigated the matter and submitted report Exhibit R-3. Untraced Report was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide order dated 9^th April, 2012 (Exhibit C-7). The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Exhibit C-3, on the ground that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes whereas it was insured as a private vehicle.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties/Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5.      The question for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating complainant’s claim or not?

6.      It is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was being plied on hire and reward by violating the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy because it was insured as a private vehicle and was being used for commercial purpose.

7.      The plea raised above, is not tenable. The opposite parties have placed on the file the investigation report Exhibit R-3 which also contains writing from Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL), Guhla. A perusal of this document shows that the vehicle was attached with them only upto June 30^th, 2011. The theft took place on July 9^th, 2011. The violation of terms of the policy, if any, had already been stopped before the date of theft and thus there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on the date of theft. The complainant cannot be penalized for the previous violation, if any. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot deny the claim of the complainant.

8.      The other contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that theft took place in the area of HUDA Colony, Jind, whereas the complainant in his complaint has stated that the vehicle was stolen at Kaithal Road, Cheeka.

9.      This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also not forceful. True version has been given in the F.I.R. In the complaint itself, a typographical mistake was committed at the hands of the complainant. The complainant had submitted an application dated 10.02.2015 before the District Forum for necessary correction in the complaint in this regard and reply to the same was also filed on behalf of the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company cannot deny the benefits of Insurance to the complainant, and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

10.    For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.  The complaint is allowed directing the Insurance Company/opposite parties to pay Rs.4.00 lacs, that is, the Insurance Declared Value (IDV) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

 

Announced 01.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL