State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd., Outer ... vs Anil Siwach Son Of Sh. Ram Pal Siwach, ... on 17 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.33 of 2014 Date of Institution: 14.01.2014 Date of Decision: 17.01.2014 National Insurance Company Ltd., Outer Quila Road, Rohtak through its authorized signatory and power of attorney holder R.K. Wali, Manager, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35, Chandigarh. Appellant (Opposite Party) Versus Anil Siwach son of Sh. Ram Pal Siwach, Resident of H.No.592, Ward No.5, Adarsh Nagar, Gohana, District Sonepat (Haryana). Respondent (Complainant) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Appellant: Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate. O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member (Oral):
The delay of 25 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
2. National Insurance Company-opposite party (appellant herein) is in appeal against the order dated November 13, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short District Forum), whereby the complaint filed by Anil Siwach-complainant (respondent herein) was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.6,74,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till decision, besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
3. Respondent purchased a new vehicle make Bolero VLX BS3 bearing Temporary Registration No.HR-99GZ(T)-422, Model-2011, chassis No.B2F82395, Engine No.B4F34520. The vehicle was insured with the appellant for the period from July 5th, 2011 to midnight of July 4th, 2012. It was stolen on July 6th, 2011. F.I.R. No.722 was got registered with Police Station, Gautam Budh Nagar, Sector-58, Noida, U.P. on July, 6th, 2011, from where the vehicle was stolen. Insurance Company was also informed about the theft. Claim being lodged was repudiated. Consequently complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.
4. Appellant resisted the complaint pleading that there was delay in lodging F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company. The plea was also raised that the respondent had no insurable interest on the date of the occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant restricted his argument only to the extent that the respondent be directed to execute the letter of subrogation etcetera, so that in the event of vehicle being recovered, the Insurance Company can take delivery of the vehicle from the police and also can take all other necessary steps in furtherance thereto.
6. We, therefore, order that the respondent shall execute letter of subrogation and authorization in this regard in favour of appellant- National Insurance Company.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
17.01.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL