STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 03.06.2022 Date of final hearing: 19.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.07.2022 APPEAL NO.229 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF Mukesh Kumar Nayyar, aged about 56 years, son of Shri Kewal Krishan, resident of House No.2175, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

(Through : Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant)

….Appellant/Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Opposite Hindu Girls College, Court Road, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

…….Respondent/Opposite Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN, PRESIDENT MRS. MANJULA, MEMBER Present: Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant.

PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.

ORDER

1. Complainant- Mukesh Kumar Nayyar has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhari whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed being devoid of any merit.

2. While filing the complaint, the complainant had alleged that he purchased car make Skoda Laura bearing registration No.CH01-AB- 0521 and the opposite party had provided insurance cover to the complainant valid from 11.3.2015 to 10.3.2016, and IDV of the car was assessed as Rs.8 lacs. On 21.11.2015, the car was being driven by Amay Goel, friend of the complainant. At about 10.00 A.M the car met with an accident due to sudden application of breaks by Amay Goel in order to avoid stray animal and got rear ended by some unknown vehicle. As a result of accidental impact, the car hit some unknown vehicle and the tree and then hit against the gate of Preet Electricals. The car was extensively damaged on account of the accident. Amay Goel reported the matter to the police on 22.11.2015 at 3.00 P.M. The car was moved from the accident site to Shiv Motors and then Attri Automobiles, who prepared estimate of Rs.1,05,000/- for its repair. The complainant lodged insurance claim with the opposite party by filling the motor claim form on 8.12.2015. The opposite party deputed its surveyor to investigate the matter, who gave his report Ex.R.4. During the course of investigation, the surveyor of the opposite party found the driver of the car at the time of accident to be under the influence of liquor and relying upon the surveyor’s report, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant had lodged the claim with the opposite party on 8.12.2015 and thereafter, kept on running here and there, but the opposite party did not tell him the status of his claim. Left with no other option, he issued legal notice to the opposite party and on receipt of the same, the insurance company failed to settle the claim, which amounted to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party leaving no other option to the complainant but to file the complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party filed written statement, denying the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service and admitted the repudiation of the claim of the complainant. According to the opposite party, on the day of accident, the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the car, rather, the car had been handed over to Amay Goel and the complainant had no personal knowledge about the accident and Amay Goel was under the influence of liquor. Accordingly, the opposite party was not liable to pay any claim in terms of insurance policy.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the District Consumer Commission came to the conclusion that the opposite party had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and accordingly, the complaint was dismissed being devoid of any merit.

5. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, the complainant filed the present appeal.

6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned District Consumer