State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Insurance Co Li vs C.E.R.S. on 27 June, 2008
{W
To be reported; YesfNo
BEFORE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIAON
GUJARAT STATE,AHMEDABD.
A _ eal No;1_34.2/2oo7L
New India Assurance Company Ltd,
LCDU-1 1 1-3.1.0300,
3./2, Mill Officgers Colony,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad,
...Appe1lant;
Versus
1. Consumer Education &' .Re.sea:rch Society,
Surakshia --Sanku1, Sarkhej
Gandhinagar Highway, Thalftej,
Ahwmedabad.
..Respondents
2. Mr. Gyanchand Jain,
1315, New Shivkmpa Apartment,
Nrv. Agiyaras Mata's Temple,
Nava Vadej, LAhm'edabad.
BEFORE: Justice N-. G, Nandi, Prgsident
Mr. 'M. G.'Gu1abani, Member
Mr. H. G. Mazmudar, L. Ad'v'oca-1t'e for the appellant
Rajiv N. Mehta L. Authorized Repre'sen.ta*tiveV for
respondents,
ORDER:(By IL1S.t:i'ce N. G. Nandi, President) 1 (Date 2 27--6--'20(l8) Heard Mr. H. Mazrnudar learned; advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rajiv Mehta learned autlrorized repre'ser1tative--.fOr the respondents.
This appeal. under Section 15 of the Consu1ner'ProteeItion, Act, 1986 is' /Y' directed against the order dated 27-7-2007 rendered in complaint 1:49.305,/2004 by the learned Ahmedabad District (Rural) Consumer Disputes Redressl Forum. allowing the complaint directing the opponent Insurance Company to pay _Rs.68,81l.28' to complainant No.2 with 9% interest from the date of the complaint till srealization of the; amount and also awarding Rs.t5,,O00/'- by way of EM cornpensation_ for mental harassment and inconvenience and cost of the l; complaint.
Vida order dated 2»-1132,00?' notice was. issued to thecrespondents to show cause as to why the appeal 'shoulds.not'bea.2cdmitjted.
It is suggested from the subrnissiions advanced by the learned advocate for the 'a;ppe1lant.an;d the learned authorized representative for the respondent (original complainant) and also from the irnpugnedt judgement that the cpmplaitnant obtained insurance policy bearing No.21(}3119'/9903:43 from the opponent' Insurance Company for his motel' veh'i_:e1le= - Maruti Van bearing No.GJ--1 5669; that during the subsistence of the. policyorl 1-3-2003 the vehicle was being driven and taken from Ahmedabad to Surat and on way to Surat the vehicle dashed against a tree on the 'side of the road and heavy damage was; caused. to thetvehicle; that in the said accident mother of the complainant sustained fracture injury on the left leg and other serious injuries; and that friend of the complainant. one Raje»shbhai who was in the vehicle at the relevant time died because of the injury sustained by him. Complainant teportedithe incident to the fopponentt insurance Company ;' that spot survey was made; that the c01npla'inant-l0dged the claim with the instlranice company claiming the amount of Rs.6.8,e8"11.28 being the repairing charges' of the 'V.e,h{icle,e but the Opponent Insurance Company repudiated thefclaiin contending that the vehicle at the relevant time was found to have been fitted with LPG Kit and therefore the complaiinant was not fciund to be entitled to. the compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. The complaint came to be filed before thé leainiecl Ahmedabad District (Rural) Forum and the learned District Fnrurn passed the taforesaid order which his nassailied in the present appeal by the opponent Insurance C~otn_pany (appellant).
It is not in dispute that the complainant had obtained insurance policy for his Marmi Van bearing No.GJ-1 AR 5669. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle while: going to Surat from Ahmedabacl on l-3-200t3 das'he_:d .against 3 tree an the: side of the road. and heavy damage was caused to the vehiycle and one person died in the accident and mother of the complainant sustained_ injury on the left leg. It is not in dispultexthat the claim for Rs.68,8l 1,728 was lodged with the insurance company for .c'laimin_g compensation/damage under the insurance policy. As observed above the claim put forth by the complainant came to be repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was found to have been fitted with the LPG Kit and therefore complainant would not be entitled for compensation.
It is submitted by Mr. H. G. Mazmudar learned advocate for the appellant. that' fitting of the. LPG Kit is for using: the same. for running; the car and it ~would'sugg,e;st that the car was running by using LPG and it is vi'olati"on of the contract and th'er'e:f0r_e the complnainant would not have entitled for the ........ uh compensation. It is further stated that on the basis of the surveyor's report the Joppo'nent' insurance company in its r_e--pIy to the Comp1aint.has stated that the damage suffered. by the vehicle is tothe tune} of Rs,'44,700/4..
It cannot be presumed. that Ts--imply'becfause of LPG Kit for using the LPG' gas; was found to have been fitted in the vehicle at the relevant time, the car was running with LPG gas and not bytpetrol in absence' of LPG cylienderfitted in the car. The impugned judgeinent sugggestse that there is evidence to the veffect that on I-3--2I003 petrol was purchased by the complainant for the said vehicle; Petrol bill was alsa produced and also the number of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Admittedly the vejhicie has suffered damage and the jrepairiI_1_g also having been carried out by the compiainant. The surveyor's report has been sihown to us. It need hardly be said that the survey report has to: be given due weightage. Considering the survey report and the facts of the 'case, in our opinicm. the order passed by the learned Ahmedabad Distr_i'c't (Rural) Forum needs to be modified to the effect; that complainant would be entitled to an amount' of Rs~.44,700/-L instead of ;Rs,6__6:,811,;28. In View ofithe above, the impugned order prima facie does not call for any interference except the above modification and therefore the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage with modification in the impugned other that the complainant (respondent No.2) would be entitled to Rs.44,700/-- with 9% interest. from the date of the complaint and the amount of Rs.68,8l1.28 should be read as Rs.44,700/-. Rest of the order passed by the learned Ahmedabad District (Rural) Forum stands confirmed.
(N. G. Nandi) President (M. 'G. Gulabani) Member