H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

First Appeal No. : 29/2024 Date of Presentation : 08.02.2024 Order Reserved on : 02.12.2025 Date of Order : 10.12.2025 _____

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Kotwali Bazar Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P through its Incharge CCH (Suit), New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 3^rd Floor, Block No.7, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.

……Appellant/Opposite party.

Versus Raghav Bhatia S/o Sh. Naresh Bhatia, R/o Village and P.O. Dehra, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.

……Respondent/Complainant.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member.

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms.Dimple Mehta, Advocate vice Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

20.10.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission,

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

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.311/2022 titled Raghav Bhatia Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd., whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite party/Insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,88,765/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. The opposite party/insurance company was also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, besides, litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/-.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing registration No.H.P- 36C-8721 which was purchased by him to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. The vehicle, in question, was insured with the opposite party/insurance company vide policy No. 35240531190100012076 effective w.e.f. 23.01.2020 to 22.01.2021. The complainant had engaged Sh. Avinash Kumar as driver in his vehicle. On 27.02.2020, at place near Animal Mandi, the vehicle, in question, met with an accident and got damaged. Information of accident was given to the insurance company and complainant supplied the documents to insurance company for settlement of the claim, but the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 07.08.2020 on the ground that the complainant has installed a refrigeration unit in his vehicle, whereas, in the R/C said vehicle has been registered as Pick Up Van not as “Pick UP Close Body. When the vehicle was insured with the opposite party/insurance company, the same was close body and opposite party/insurance company has charged the premium from complainant of the close body vehicle. The vehicle has also been passed by Motor Vehicle Inspector as close body and accordingly the same is plied on the Road. Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3. In reply, the opposite party/insurance company has stated that after receiving the information of accident, the insurance company appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,88,765/- as net loss payable to the complainant subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, in question. During inspection, the surveyor has found that vehicle was wrongly registered as Pickup, whereas, it is a Pickup close body. On the vehicle a refrigerator unit was installed which is different as per Pickup close body. Close body does not mean that it allows to carry Refrigerator unit and refrigerator unit has increased the gross vehicle weight and also affect the electrical and mechanical system of the vehicle. This is violation of Motor Vehicles Act as well as terms and conditions of insurance policy, in question, as such; the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim.

A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder denying th