Back
B.H.Gadhavi
CC-14-223
Page 1 of 19
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 223 of 2014
Haresh Dhirajlal Badiyani
Jamnagar Earth Avenue, Flat no.301,
Patel Colony, Sheri No. 8,
Jamnagar
…Complainant
Vs.
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office,
Near Town Hall,
Hasmukhbhai Chambers,
Ellis bridge, Ahmedabad.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Notice to be served to Branch Manager)
2nd Floor, Shakti Shoping Centre,
Near Bus stand,
Branch Office,Kalol,
Gandhinagar-382721
...Opponents
Appearance: Ld. Advocate Mr. P.K. Parmar
For the Complainant
Ld. Advocate Ms. Nayanaben Shah
For the Opponents
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint u/s.
17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 due to
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
22 10
2021
Date of filling
14 08
2014
Duration
08 02
07
B.H.Gadhavi
CC-14-223
Page 2 of 19
deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice
on the part of opponents.
2. The complainant has purchased a truck on 09.05.2013
truck Tata LPT-3118 it was registered in GJ-10-TT-9401
and it was insured with the respondent company vide
policy No. 302200/31/13/6300000818(I.D.V) Insured
Declare View Rs. 23,00,000/- for the period of
15.05.2013 to 14.05.2014 the vehicle in question was
using for transportation business for the maintenance of
family members.
Further it is case of the complainant that policy was
issued for the said vehicle and for that policy
complainant was paying premium of Rs. 37,900/- and
for that receipt and policy document was issued from the
insurance company without any kind of clause, sub-
clause or terms and condition of the policy.
According to the complainant case at night on
07.08.2013 driver has parked the truck in question at
the Sikka office in front of the office of Babulal Bhimji
and he also locked the vehicle carefully and kept keys
with himself, and next morning truck was missing,
andthan complainant lodged the FIR at Meghpur police
station FIR No. 40/2013 under section 379 of IPC the
FIR and panchnama was produced with the complaint.
As per the requirement of the procedure the claim
form, R.C.Book, Driving License, Permit Fitness,FIR,
Police Panchnama,File investigation report as well the
report of National Crime Bureau was submitted to the
insurance company, on 24.10.2013 complainant was
intimated by the opponent about the repudiation of the
claim in question.
B.H.Gadhavi
CC-14-223
Page 3 of 19
Further it is the case of the complainant that
repudiation of the claim of the complainant by opponent
company is not legal and valid because the reason given
for repudiation of the claim by insurance company is that
the key of the truck was kept in the cabin of the truck
and due to this reason they repudiated the claim, that’s
why the decision to repudiate the claim is not legal and
valid , so that it can be considered as the deficiency in
service and unfair trade practice by the opponent
insurance company.
Moreover it is also submitted that key of the vehicle
kept in the cabin this statement is wrongfully obtained
by police from the driver.
In addition to that the complaint is filed within
jurisdiction and within time limit as per the section 24
Aof the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
As the policy of the Truck was of Rs. 23,00,000/-
Complainant has prayed for Rs. 23,00,000/- along with
the 18% interest from the date of filing the complaint.,
Rs. 30,000/- for Mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- for the
cost of complaint.
3. Notice was duly served upon to opponent side and
opponent side appeared and filed their reply before the
Forum.
4. Ld. Advocate Nayanaben Shah appeared on behalf of the
opponent insurance company and Written Submission
are filed for the complaint at Exh. 9 opponent insurance
company has submitted th
