State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Shri Hitender Chandel on 4 December, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.26/2012
Date of Decision: 04.12.2012
Oriental Insurance
Company Limited,
Through its Senior
Divisional Manager,
Mythe Estate, Kaithu,
Shimla, H.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
Shri Hitender Chandel
son of Shri Lokinder S. Chandel,
R/o Pawan Kunj,
Shoghi,Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant: Mr.
Ameet S. Kanwar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) The Only point that has been raised in this appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, passed in the complaint of respondent Hitender Chandel, is that the insured vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as also the law, at the time when the accident took place and hence, respondent-complainant is not entitled to seek indemnification for the damage caused to the vehicle.
2. Respondent Hitender Chandel, owned a water tanker, which was insured with the appellant for the period from 15.04.2006 to 14.04.2007. On 21.07.2007, when the insurance policy was in force, insureds vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. Report was lodged with the police and appellant was also informed. A surveyor deputed by the appellant assessed the loss at `93,193/-.
Appellant, however, repudiated the claim on the plea that there were two unauthorized persons on board the vehicle when accident took place.
3. Respondent felt aggrieved by the action of the appellant in repudiating his claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appellant contested the complaint on the same ground on which it had repudiated the claim.
4. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and ordered the appellant to pay a sum of `93,193/-, as assessed by the appellants surveyor, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay `10,000/- as compensation and `3,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants counsel that the seating capacity of the vehicle, in question, was only two, as per registration certificate, Annexure R-1, but there were four persons on board the vehicle, including driver and conductor, when the accident took place.
7. It is true that even in the registration certificate, seating capacity is written as 2. However it seems that this capacity is in addition to the crew of the tanker, comprising of the driver and the conductor, because in the insurance policy that was issued by the appellant itself, seating capacity is written as 4.
8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member December 04, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?