Haryana

StateCommission

A/146/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKRAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD KUMAR ARYA

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       146 of 2015

Date of Institution:       11.02.2015

Date of Decision :        18.09.2015

 

1.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

 

2.     Anoop Singh s/o Sh. Jaibir Singh, Resident of Gali No.9, Main Road, Surya Nagar, Hisar.

 

         Both through Ashraf Ali, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                       Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Jang Bahadur, Resident of Gali No.1, Surya Nagar, Hisar-125001.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Kushal Chand, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Vikram Singh-respondent-complainant in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Opposite Parties are in appeal against the order dated December 23^rd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Hisar, whereby complaint No.533 of 2012.

2.      Vikram Singh-complainant, got his truck, Tata 2516 (Dumper), bearing registration No.HR-39A-8017, insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, for the period from November 2^nd, 2011 to November 1^st, 2012 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.16.00 lacs.

3.      On December 28^th, 2011, the vehicle met with an accident and caught fire and was burnt. Fire Tenders were called who extinguished the fire. Police was informed upon which DDR No.4 dated 28.12.2011 (Exhibit C-4) was recorded in Police Post, HTM, Hisar. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted report Exhibit R-2 whereby the loss was assessed at Rs.6,92,000/-. Claim being submitted, the Insurance Company repudiated claim vide letter Exhibit C-5 stating as under:-

“This with reference to your above mentioned claim, on going through the survey report of Mr. I.B. Mehta & document provided by you good self, it is observed that the vehicle which was produced for survey is different from the vehicle shown at the time of pre-inspection.

On the basis of above information that you have shown the different vehicle at the time of insurance. You have not given a chance to underwriter to inspect the vehicle on spot. This is gross misrepresentation of the face on your part. Hence, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly.”

4.      Aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company-opposite parties, contested complaint by filing reply reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter.

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as under:-

“…….this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the Insurance company i.e. opposite party No.2, to pay Rs.14,40,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of accident i.e. 28.12.2011 till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- against opposite party No.2.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company argued that the District Forum erred in allowing the complaint while granting compensation beyond the report of surveyor, Exhibit R-2, whereby the net loss of complainant was assessed at Rs.6,92,000/-.

8.      Indisputably, the IDV of the vehicle was of Rs.16.00 lacs. In para 13 of the report Exhibit R-2, it has been mentioned that ‘Cabin assy comp burnt and Chassis frame melted, Engine assy melted. Besides, other parts of the vehicle detailed at Sr.No.13 were burnt/melted’. Still the surveyor assessed the loss only at Rs.6,92,000/- by reducing the IDV from Rs.16.00 lacs to Rs.12.00 lacs. As per Insurance Policy, the IDV was Rs.16.00 lacs whereas the surveyor took it at Rs.12.00 lacs. Once the premium was taken by the Insurance Company for IDV of Rs.16.00 lacs, then the same cannot be reduced by the surveyor of his own after accident. Moreover, in the letter of repudiation Exhibit C-5, reason given is that some other vehicle was shown, which stands falsified by own evidence of opposite parties. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. However, the complainant is directed to hand over the salvage to the opposite parties and also to execute the letter of subrogation, transfer of RC  etc in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

9.      The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.09.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL