H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: 235/2023 Date of Presentation: 31.10.2023 Reserved on: 18.03.2025 Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 …………………………………………………………………. 1. The New India Assurance Co. Limited, Divisional Office, Near Telephone Exchange Hamirpur, H.P.-

177001.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Limited, Divisional Office, Hospital Road Mandi, H.P.

Both the appellants through their Incharge CCH (Suit), New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional rd Office, 3 Floor, Block No.7, SDA Complex, Shimla-9, H.P.

….......Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus Rashmi Kaushal W/o late Sh.Rajinder Kumar Kaushal, R/o House No.115, Krishna Nagar, Hamirpur, Tehsil & District Hamirpur, H.P.

……Respondent/Complainant.

……………………………………………………………………

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

For the Appellants: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms.Vandana Thakur, Advocate.

……………………………………………………………………………

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R:

Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by learned District Commission, Una Camp at Hamirpur, in consumer complaint No.59/2019 titled Smt. Rashmi Kaushal Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.19,510/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order and further opposite parties were directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that husband of complainant was owner of vehicle i.e. car bearing registration No.HP-44-0022, who expired on 13.06.2018 and now the complainant is owner of vehicle and the said vehicle was duly insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.35230031180100003266 which was valid up to 10.06.2019. On 03.11.2018, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and same was got repaired from Saluja Ford for Rs.30,530/-. The opposite parties/insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The said act of the opposite parties/insurance company amounts to deficiency in sservice and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite parties/insurance company filed reply and stated that at the time of accident Sh. Rajinder Kumar Kaushal, husband of complainant (now deceased) was registered owner of the vehicle in question and insurance policy remained continued in his name till 18.03.2019. The insured Rajender Kumar (now deceased) expired on 13.06.2018 and accident of the vehicle in question took place on 03.11.2018, whereas the policy in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 18.03.2019. However, net loss assessed by loss assessor Er.Harmit Singh Kalsi was Rs.19,510/-. The complainant has no insurable interest and she is not entitled for any claim. The insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.03.2019, as the policy was in the name of Rajinder Kumar (deceased) at the time of accident. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties/insurance company. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder denying the contents of the reply filed by opposite parties and reiterating those of complaint.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission below allowed the complaint of the complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellants/insurance company has preferred the instant appeal before this Commiss