Appeal No. 321 of 2011. Case: Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited Vs Pradyumansinh Dhirubha Bhati. Gujarat State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases
|Case Number:||Appeal No. 321 of 2011|
|Party Name:||Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited Vs Pradyumansinh Dhirubha Bhati|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: V.P. Nanavati, Tarpada and C.R. Kothari, Learned Advocates|
|Judges:||Atul Vakil, Member (J) and Dr. J.D. Nirmal, Member|
|Judgement Date:||January 09, 2017|
|Court:||Gujarat State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases|
Atul Vakil, Member (J), (Ahmedabad)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar in Complaint No. 164 of 2010 dated 25.2.2011 partly allowing the complaint the Present Appeal is filed by the appellant who was opponent in the complaint. The appellants and the respondents will be respectively referred to as the opponent and the complainant for the sake of convenience.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are stated as under; The complainant had purchased one Transit Mixer vehicle which was insured with the opponent insurance company for the period from 27.2.2008 to 26.2.2009. On 10.8.2008 the said vehicle was in use in the premises of Essar Oil Mill situated at Vadinar, Jamnagar. On that date, said vehicle fell in the ditch and that as result, said vehicle was damaged. The complainant had intimated the opponent insurance company who had appointed a Surveyor and the Surveyor had assessed the damage caused to the vehicle. The complainant had then got repaired the said vehicle by spending Rs. 1,77,628=55 ps. The complainant submitted the claim along with the repairing bills along with other documents. The opponent insurance company repudiated the claim on 29-7-2009 on two grounds: (i) that the complainant was not having insurable interest in the vehicle and (ii) there was not valid permit for the insured vehicle on the dale of the accident.
The complainant challenged the repudiation by filing the complaint. The opponent contested the complaint. The learned Forum, considering the pleadings and the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, found that the repudiation of the claim was not proper and legal and ultimately allowed the complaint directing the opponent insurance company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,77,628=55 ps. The learned Forum had also directed the opponent insurance company to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental harassment and the costs of the complaint. The judgment and the order of the learned Forum is challenged in this appeal by the opponent insurance company.
We have heard learned advocate Mr. V.P. Nanavari and Mr. Tarpada learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. C.R. Kothari for the complainant. We have also perused the record of the case.
There is not dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with the opponent insurance company for the period from 27.2.2008 to 26.2-2009. There is no dispute that said vehicle met with the accident on 10-8-2008 in the premises of the Essar Oil Mill where it was being plied. The insurance policy schedule, premium computation table and the certificate of insurance are produced at pages 31 to 33 of this appeal. The policy wordings are produced at pages 34 to 41 of this appeal. All these documents were also produced before the learned Forum, the policy schedule and the certificate of insurance show that it is issued in the name of the complainant. The registration No. is not written in these documents stating that the vehicle was new. The Engine No. and the Chassis No. are written. There is no dispute that the Engine No. and the Chassis No. written in the policy documents are the same of the vehicle in question. The insurance policy documents show that the policy was issued on 27.2.2008. It was valid upto 26.2.2009. It is not in dispute that when the accident had taken place, the policy was in existence.
It is contended that the insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant on the basis of one writing executed on 25.2-2008 written by one Bharatsinh Jorubha Jadeja in favour of the present complainant. This writing is at page No. 50. Vide this writing Bharatsinh J. Jadeja had sold this vehicle to the complainant by giving possession of the offending vehicle. In this writing the Engine No. and the Chassis No. were also written...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL