State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman National Insurance Co.3, ... vs Dr. Parveen Malhotra, Assistant ... on 24 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.853 of 2013 Date of Institution: 19.11.2013 Date of Decision: 24.12.2013 1. The Chairman National Insurance Co.3, Mittldon Street, Culcutta. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Outer Kila Road, Rohtak. Appellants Versus Dr. Parveen Malhotra, Assistant Professor, PGIMS, Health University, Rohtak, Resident of 128/19, Naveen Niketan Near Civil Hospital, Rohtak. Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member For the Parties: Sh. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants Sh. K.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent O R D E R
Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral):
National Insurance Company Limited and its Chairman (hereinafter referred to as appellants) have filed this appeal against the order dated October 10th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, (for short District Forum) whereby, an amount of Rs.55,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses was awarded to Dr. Parveen Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as respondent) on account of theft of his car bearing registration No.HR-05H-6925.
2. The car was insured with the appellants vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-3. The car was stolen on September 10th, 2007. The police and the appellants were immediately informed about the theft of the car. FIR No.196 (Exhibit P-3) was registered on September 11th, 2007 in Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak. The car was not traced out. The respondent submitted the claim with the appellants but the same was rejected on the ground that the car was not insured with them. The Insured Declared Value of the car was Rs.55,000/.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that in the Insurance Policy Exhibit R-3, the registration number of the car was mentioned as HR-05-6225, whereas in the Certificate of Registration the number mentioned was HR-05H-6925 though the car was in the name of the respondent. Since there was variance of the registration number of the car in the policy, so the car was not insured with the appellants and as such the District Forum fell in error in awarding the amount of compensation to the respondent.
4. The argument is devoid of merit in view of the fact that in the Insurance Policy, the engine number of the car is mentioned 2050642 and the same number is mentioned in the Certificate of Registration. It appears that by slip of pen the registration number of the car was wrongly mentioned in the Insurance Policy.
5. Another clinching evidence on the record is that the car in question was being insured with the appellants since its purchase that is year 2000. The appellants could not place on record any evidence to prove that the car which was insured with them, was not owned by the respondent.
6. Thus, the order under appeal requires no interference and the appeal consequently fails.
7. As stated by the learned counsel for the parties, the amount awarded by the District Forum has not been paid, so the appellants are directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
24.12.2013 B.M. Bedi Judicial Member Nawab Singh President CL