Haryana

StateCommission

A/448/2016

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHAL TANEJA - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

26 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.448 of 2016

Date of Institution: 19.05.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 26.05.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., through its DM Palam Court, Ist Floor Near Maharana Partap Chowk, M.G.road, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory Shri Amit Chawla Regional Office, S.C.O. No.145-146, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Vishal Taneja, r/o H.No.235, HB Colony, Sector-7, Gurgaon 122001.

2.      M/s Om Automobile, Plots No.35-36, Shop No.14, Vijay Park Near Laxmi Nagar,Gurgaon.

                                      …..Respondents

 

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by complainant that he got his vehicle bearing registration No.DL-4-CP-4752 (Accent Hyundai) insured from the opposite party (O.P.) No.1 and Insured Declared value (IDV) was Rs.1,80,000/-.  Policy was valid from 07.03.2010 to 06.03.2011. Due to some defects, vehicle was taken to workshop of O.P.No.1 on 15.02.2011.  On 16.02.2011 fire broke out into the workshop and his car was totally burnt. He submitted claim with O.P.No.1, but, the same was repudiated on the ground of contractual liability, whereas the car was taken to the workshop of O.P.No.1 for minor repairs.

2.      O.P.No.1 controverted the averments of the complainant and alleged that as per policy it was not liable to pay any compensation in respect of any claim arising out of any contractual liability. As the fire broke out in the premises of O.P.No.1, so it was liable to give any compensation.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Gurgaon (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 25.03.2016 and directed as under:-

“Therefore we allow the present complaint and direct the insurance company to pay the insured value of the vehicle to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.8,000/-.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that  as per condition No.2 under General Exceptions of terms and conditions of insurance policy it was not liable to pay any claim arising out of any contractual liability.  As the car was handed over to O.P.No.1 for repairs it was not liable to pay any compensation. 

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. The car was not given to O.P.No.2 against any contract.  It was only taken to his workshop for the purpose of minor repairs.  As the fire erupted in the workshop this car was also burnt.  So O.P.No.1 cannot escape from it’s liability.  Had O.P.No.2 been using the vehicle of complainant under any contract then it would have been a different matter.  Had the car been damaged during repairs or fire had taken place due to this reason then it could have been a different matter.  If O.P.No.2 is also having insurance of his workshop it does not mean that appellant can deny the right of the complainant.  If O.P.No.2 submit claim about loss, including the car in question, the appellant can bring this fact to the notice of that company.  This is no ground to deny the right of the complainant.  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 in limine.

8.      The 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.

 

May 26th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                      Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench                

S.K.