STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Ropar having its Regional Office at SCO 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its duly constituted Attorney.

2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.127-128, Sector 17, Chandigarh having its regional office at SCO 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its duly constituted attorney.

    ……Appellants/Opposite parties

V e r s u s

Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of House No.55, VPO Siswan, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

…..Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                             SH.RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

Present through video conferencing:                

                             Sh.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER           

                   This appeal has been filed by the appellants, as they are aggrieved of the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), U.T., Chandigarh, whereby consumer complaint bearing No.532 of 2018 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the appellants/Opposite Parties were directed as under:-

1.  to pay Rs.4,92,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 7.8.2018 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.’

2.           The District Commission noted down the following facts out of the case of the respondent/complainant:-      

“……The sum and substance of allegations as contained in consumer complaint is, complainant happened to be the owner of Toyota Etios car bearing registration No.PB-01A-8961. The vehicle was purchased by him to earn livelihood and he had employed a driver, Sh. Lakhwinder Singh in the year 2017.  His case is, the vehicle was insured with the OPs w.e.f 1.3.2017 to 28.2.2018. The IDV of vehicle was Rs.6,50,000/-. Maintained, on 29.5.2017 vehicle was hired by one, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini and Sh. Lakhwinder Singh happened to be the driver. An army truck driven rashly and negligently came in front of the insured car near Ishargarh Mor, Kurukshetra and hit it as a result thereof, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini, occupant and driver, Sh. Lakhwinder Singh suffered hurt.  They were taken to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra where Sh. Gurpreet Singh was declared dead.  The vehicle was badly damaged nearing total loss. The claim was submitted, but, it was not decided within a reasonable period, therefore, a consumer complaint was lodged before the District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh which had passed directions to the Insurance Company to decide the claim within a stipulated period, however, the same was not decided within prescribed stipulated period, but, was finally repudiated on 7.8.2018 on the grounds, engaged driver was found under influence of liquor and doctor had opined breath smelt of alcohol and he slipped away from the hospital and further the driver, Sh. Lakhwinder Singh was not having a valid driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle at the time of accident. Maintained, said two grounds are not sustainable before law, therefore, the act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant file