Haryana

StateCommission

A/1148/2016

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

Versus

VIKESH - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :   1148 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, Branch Office, c/o Indusind Bank, B-99, 2^nd Floor, Green Square, Market Hisar.

3.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Head, SCO 2463-64, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Vikesh son of Ramesh, resident of Village and Post Office Mamanpura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

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)

 

          By filing this appeal, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) have challenged the order dated October 03^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Vikesh-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, October 09^th, 2015 till its actual payment on account of theft of his vehicle No.ML08D-3005. 

2.      The vehicle owned by the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company.  It was stolen on June 01^st, 2014 in the area of Village Beharbari.  First Information Report No.466 dated June 02^nd, 2014 was recorded in Police Station Basistha, District Beharbari.  The Insurance Company was immediately informed.  The claim filed by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground of misrepresentation of facts on the basis of forensic investigation.  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 ground that in the report of the surveyor, it was stated that there was chance of fabrication of the keys given to the surveyor of the Insurance Company. 

4.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company.  There is no evidence on the record to show that the keys, which were examined by the surveyor were of the stolen vehicle or not.  Otherwise also, the report is not authenticated because it has been mentioned that there are chances of fabrication.  Thus, the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the complainant has violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The order under challenge requires no interference.  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