Haryana

StateCommission

A/586/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

URMILA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.586 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:13.07.2015

                                      Date of Decision: 02.12.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Rohtak, through Deputy Manager Legal, Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO 145-146, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                …Appellant

Versus

 

Urmila Devi wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar resident V.P.O Titoli, Tehsil & District Rohtak.

                                                …Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr. Hitender Kansal, proxy counsel for Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

     It was alleged by complainant that he was registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-15G-0029 which was got insured from opposite party (for short ‘OP’)-appellant for the period 25.06.2007 to 24.06.2008. On 11.03.2008 said vehicle met with an accident and case was registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak. Survey was conducted by Rajesh Nawal at the instance of OP-appellant and he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.11,06,844/-. She submitted claim with OP, but when no satisfactory reply was received, complaint was made with Ombudsman who directed to give Rs.5,56,950/- to her as full and final settlement. As the amount was meager, so she did not accept that offer. She be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.11,06,844/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident besides compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.                Appellant-OP filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that complaint was not maintainable because she was not covered by definition of consumer. It was also alleged that after Rajesh Nawal another surveyor Vivek Nawal submitted his report on 16.12.2008 as per terms and conditions of insurance policy subject to net of salvage basis. Calculation given by this surveyor was as under:-

     “Insured declared value            :         Rs.9,70,600/-

     -25% on sub Standard Basis    :         Rs.2,42,640/-

     Total                                            :         Rs.7,27,960/-

     Less Excess Clause                 :         Rs.1000/-___

     Total                                            :         Rs.7,26,960/-

     Less Salvage                             :         Rs.2,25,000/-

     Total liability of insurance                   :        

     Company                                    :         Rs.5,01,950/-

     (Five Lakh One Thousand nine hundred and fifty rupees only)”

 

He did not assessed loss to the tune of Rs.16,06,844/-. When Ombudsman had already assessed loss to the tune of Rs.5,56,950/- she was not entitled to file any complaint. At the time of accident 12 passengers were travelling in the vehicle whereas approved capacity was of 7 passengers. Objections about locus-standi, jurisdiction, maintainability, applicability of principal of resjudicata etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

          “In view of the findings and discussions, opposite party is directed to make payment of Rs.7,44,600/- (Rupees seven lac forty four thousand six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of finling the present complaint i.e. 04.08.2010 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount of Rs.7,44,600/- shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

    

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom OP has preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that when the matter was already adjudicated upon by the Ombudsman, this complaint was not maintainable. As per decision of Ombudsman (Ex.R-3) complainant is entitled for Rs.5,56,950/- only.  It is also argued that this vehicle was passed for carrying 7 passengers, but at the time of accident 12 passengers were travelling. In this way terms and conditions of insurance policy were violated and she is not entitled for any compensation.  So, impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed.  He placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.4647 of 2013 titled as “Krishan Dass Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd.” decided on 16^th January, 2015.

7.                This argument is devoid of any force. It is nowhere proved on the file that this accident had taken place due to more number of passengers. From the perusal of copy of FIR, Ex.P-11 it is clear that truck coming from opposite side hit this vehicle. The fault was on the part of driver of other vehicle and not the driver of vehicle in question. So appellant cannot derive any benefit from the case law cited because in that case driver of insured vehicle was on fault.

8.                Moreover, if, Ombudsman has assessed loss it does not mean that complainant is bound by the same. She did not received amount awarded by Ombudsman and filed this complaint. This is an independent rite which can be exercised by consumer. Learned District Forum has awarded compensation as assessed by surveyor of OP. So, these arguments are of no avail. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.                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, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

December 02nd,                  Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K. Bishnoi

2016                                       Member                                 Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                          Addl. Bench

R.K