Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company ... vs Balraj Singh on 13 March, 2014

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
                         DEHRADUN

                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 111 / 2012

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
Lucknow through its Manager
                                                         ......Appellant

                                 Versus

Sh. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. Hardayal Singh
R/o 22, Bengali Mandir Marg
Rishikesh, District Dehradun
                                                        ......Respondent

Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Amit Agarwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
       Mr. C.C. Pant,                    Member

Dated: 13/03/2014

                               ORDER

(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 210 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,14,700/- to the respondent - complainant; Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It was also directed that in case the above amount is not paid within a period of 30 days, then the respondent shall also be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of truck No. RJ-13GA-0096. The said truck was insured with the appellant - HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010. On 16.11.2009 at about 7:30 p.m., the insured truck was stolen from Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The FIR of the said incident was lodged by the driver of the insured vehicle with P.S. Bhiwadi. The intimation with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle was given to the insurance company on the same date. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, but the insurance company did not settle the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.

3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on investigation of the matter, it was found that the complainant had sold the insured vehicle to Sh. Ajay Kumar on 16.06.2007; that the insurance policy and registration certificate of the insured vehicle were not got transferred in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar and that for this reason, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and no deficiency in service was made by the insurance company.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 09.04.2012 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6. It is a settled law that the registered owner of the vehicle shall be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant and the insurance policy was also issued in the name of the complainant. The insurance company has not denied this fact. There is also no dispute with regard to the factum of theft of the insured vehicle during the period of validity of insurance policy. When the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant and the policy was also issued in his favour and there is no dispute regarding the theft of the vehicle, the insurance company was not at all justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The investigator appointed by the insurance company has also not doubted the genuineness of the incident of theft of the insured vehicle and the police authorities have also not doubted the claim of the complainant. Thus, the District Forum was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint and there has certainly been deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

7. So far as the quantum is concerned, the vehicle was insured for the period from 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010 for sum of Rs. 5,14,700/-. The vehicle was stolen in the evening of 16.11.2009. Thus, there is no question of any deduction on account of use of the vehicle from the date of insurance till the date of its theft and the District Forum has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,14,700/-. However, so far as the interest awarded @9% p.a. is concerned, we are of the view that the same is on the higher side and in our considered view, the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 25,000/- passed by the District Forum towards mental agony, is liable to be set aside. The 4 litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum are also on the higher side and the same need to be reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 09.04.2012 passed by the District Forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,14,700/- to the respondent together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Costs of the appeal made easy.

            (C.C. PANT)                (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)
K