Haryana

StateCommission

A/1149/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKAS - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :   1149 of 2016

Date of Institution:  02.02.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:    15.02.2017

 

 

 

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through Manager, Registered & Head Office Dere House, 2^nd Floor No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Vikas son of Sh. Tejpal, resident of Village Kherdi, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

Argued by:          Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

 

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) have filed the instant appeal challenging the order dated September 21^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Vikas-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay the insured value of vehicle, that is, Rs.3,96,150/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, May 14^th, 2014 till its realization and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of theft of his tractor. 

2.      The tractor owned by the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company.  It was stolen on July 06^th, 2013.  First Information Report No.249 dated July 007^th, 2013 was recorded.  The Insurance Company was informed.  The claim filed by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that there was a delay of 18 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order on the short ground that the complainant gave intimation to the Insurance Company after 18 days of the incident. 

4.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company.  The tractor was insured with the Insurance Company. It was stolen on July 06^th, 2013. The FIR was registered on the very next day of the incident, that is, July 07^th, 2013. The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was a delay of 18 days in giving intimation to it.  The Insurance Company cannot deny to indemnify the complainant with respect to the loss of insured tractor.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

 

 

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 15.02.017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK