NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SANJEEV BALKRISHNA SHIRSAT
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2013-12-10
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 11,2013

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Sanjeev Balkrishna Shirsat Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KANDIMALLA RAGHAVAIAH & CO. V/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MANOHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/10/2009 passed by District Forum. Sindhudurg in consumer complaint No. 22/2009. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: -
The original complainant had availed insurance of his JCB machine from opponent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The vehicle was insured for a period 13/02/2006 to 12/02/2007 and policy number of the insurance was 152201/31/05/00013705. While machine was at construction site Maneri -Kudase, there was an accident and the machine was damaged. The complainant had informed said accident to the opponent/Insurance Company. The complainant contented that the opponent/Insurance Company appointed Surveyor namely. Mr. Dige and the Surveyor had asked for papers which were not required for assessment of the loss. As the opponent/Insurance Company was avoiding to pay the insurance claim, he has issued a notice through an Advocate. However, opponent/Insurance Company has not taken any cognizance. Alleging that non -payment of insurance claim as a deficiency in service on the part of the opponent/Insurance Company, the complainant has filed complaint praying to direct the opponent/Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 13,05,000/ - as insurance with interest @ 10% p.a. and the compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.

(2.)OPPONENT /Insurance Company had contested the consumer complaint by filing written version contending therein that complaint is beyond the limitation and JCB machine is hypothecated to the Larsen and Toubro Finance Company. However, Larsen and Toubro Finance Company has not been added as necessary party. The opponent/Insurance Company has also taken a plea that JCB machine was used for commercial purpose and hence, complainant is not a consumer. Further, opponent/Insurance Company has objected to the complaint on the ground that JCB machine is not registered with the RTO and the driver of the JCB machine was not having valid driving licence. It is also contended by the opponent/Insurance Company that complainant was asked to produce certain papers for assessment of the claim. However, he has not produced said papers. Therefore, opponent/Insurance Company has prayed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, complaint may please be dismissed.
(3.)THE complainant has filed a rejoinder on the pleadings raised by opponent/Insurance Company in their written version. Both parties have filed interrogatories and reply thereto also. Similarly, opponent/Insurance Company had filed an affidavit of Surveyor -Shri Gavande and Surveyor -Shri Dige.
District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the opponent/Insurance Company, rejoinder filed by the complainant, interrogatories filed by both the parties and their replies, affidavits filed by the Surveyors, evidence filed on affidavits and the pleadings of the Advocates came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent/Insurance Company and partly allowed the complaint directing the opponent/Insurance Company to pay Rs. 9,18,475/ - with interest @ 9% p.a. from 31/01/2007, Rs. 5,000/ - for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/ - as costs. Aggrieved by said order, opponent/Insurance Company has filed present appeal.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.