State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Shri Rajak S/O Sh. Abdul Wahid R/O ... on 14 December, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1247 of 2012 Date of Institution: 31.10.2012 Date of Decision: 14.12.2012 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., DO-IVG, Jain Bhawan 12, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, through its Divisional Manager. Appellant (OP) Versus Shri Rajak s/o Sh. Abdul Wahid R/o FCA-1552, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Nagar, NIT, Faridabad. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rajesh Verma, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Oriental Insurance Company-Opposite Party has come up in appeal against the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faridabad in complaint bearing No.418/2005 whereby the opposite party was held liable to pay the insurable benefits to the respondent-complainant on account of damage of complainants insured Dumper (vehicle) due to the accident.
The delay of 35 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed alongwith this appeal.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that Dumper bearing registration No.38K-0039 of complainant was insured with the appellant-opposite party. During insured period, the above said Dumper damaged in an accident on 16.01.2003 while returning from Village Bolkhera District Bharatpur to Delhi leaded with Silica sand. D.D.R. was lodged with concerned police station. Information to the opposite party was given. After getting his vehicle repaired, complainant submitted a claim of Rs.4,34,428/- to the opposite party but the same was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant has come up in appeal.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that the complainant had submitted bill No.6736 dated 09.02.2003 with respect to dumper No.HR-38K/0039. It was found that the vehicle was over loaded and therefore complainants claim was rightly repudiated.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
Heard.
The controversy involved in this case is whether the vehicle (Dumper) of the complainant suffered damage in an accident on 16.01.2012. Complainant has tendered in evidence copy of DDR dated 16.01.2012 (Ex.D-12), the report dated 19.06.2003 of authorized signatory of M/s Kameshwar Mineral Development (Ex.R4) and copy of bill No.5088. The vehicle was being driven by Maksood at the time of accident. Bill No.5088 which supported certificate Ex.C4. The opposite party has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence contrary to the complainants version which established that the vehicle was not overloaded.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the order passed by District Forum. Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
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, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 14.12.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member