Haryana

Sonipat

06/2015

KULDEEP S/O RAM NARAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. ,2. B.M. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,3. PARVESH S/O PREM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. LATHER

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.06 of 2015

                                Instituted on:08.01.2015

                                Date of order:23.11.2015

 

Kuldeep son of Ram Narain, resident of VPO Gopalpur, tehsil

Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot on.2, First Floor, F-Tower, DLF Building, IT Park, Chandigarh through its Manager-incharge.

2.Naveen Goel, Branch Manager, Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd., office at 2^nd floor, SCO 400 to 402, HDFC Building Model Town, Rohtak.

3.Parvesh son of Prem Singh, Prop. Mayank Suraksha Point, near Jai Narain Dharamshala, Delhi road, Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Parmod Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv.for respondent no.1 & 2.

           Respondent no.3 in person.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of Swift car no.HR-79/2489 which was insured with the respondent no.1. Unfortunately, the said vehicle has met with an accident and it was turned turtle due to which the vehicle was totally damaged. The matter was reported to the PS Kharkhoda, upon which a report vide FIR no.527 of 2014 dated 26.9.2014 was lodged. The complainant got inspected his vehicle from Laxmi Motors, village Pipli, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat and estimate of Rs.5,80,000/- was given by the said repairer. The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondents and requested for payment of Rs.5,75,000/-  on total loss basis.  But the respondents intimated the complainant vide letter dated 27.10.2014 about the driving of the vehicle by one Mohit and again vide letter dated 2.12.2014 the respondent has stated about not intimating the respondents immediately after the accident. The said vehicle was got financed by the respondent from Magma Fincorp and the monthly installment is also delayed as the complainant is not going outside his village for his work.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 have appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted that during investigation, it came in the knowledge of the investigator that at the time of alleged accident, one Mohit son of Jeet Ram was driving the vehicle but the complainant has concealed the factum of driver. It is strange enough that the car was totally damaged as per the complainant, but the driver has not sustained any injuries and it creates doubt. The intimation regarding the accident was given to the respondents no.1 and 2 after a delay of 5 days and that amounts to violation of terms and conditions on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly denied the claim of the complainant and it cannot be said deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 in any manner.

          The respondent no.3 in his written statement has submitted that he is agent of the insurance company and the insurance of the vehicle in question was done through him with the respondent no.1 and the amount of insurance was deposited with the insurance company by him.  The respondent no.1 insurance company is responsible to pay the claim amount to the complainant and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.3.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that during investigation, it came in the knowledge of the investigator that at the time of alleged accident, one Mohit son of Jeet Ram was driving the vehicle but the complainant has concealed the factum of driver. It is strange enough that the car was totally damaged as per the complainant, but the driver has not sustained any injuries and it creates doubt. The intimation regarding the accident was given to the respondents no.1 and 2 after a delay of 5 days and that amounts to violation of terms and conditions on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.  The respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly denied the claim of the complainant and it cannot be said deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 in any manner.

          The complainant in support of his case has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the car was totally damaged in the alleged accident and he got the estimated loss of the car in question from Laxmi Motors, village Pipli, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat, who has submitted the estimated cost of repair for Rs.575000/-. The respondents no.1 and 2 have denied the claim of the complainant on false and baseless grounds and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          The respondent has placed on record the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.

          In the present case, vide documents Ex.C14/ Ex.R5, some documents were demanded from the complainant by the respondent insurance company, detail of which is reproduced below:-

a)During our process when we met with you and enquired regarding the real factum of driver, you have told us that Mr. Mohit son of Jeet Ram was driving the insured vehicle at the time of said accident.

b)Kindly provide DL copy of Mohit son of Jeet

     Ram.

c)Arrange a meeting with Mohit on urgent basis.

 

     The bare perusal of the document Ex.C16 placed

on record by the complainant itself shows that regarding this accident, FIR no.527 dated 26.9.2014 was got registered with PS Kharkhoda.  The FIR further itself shows that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Kuldeep son of Ram Narain.  As per Annexure R-2 i.e. motor claim form, the claim was got registered with the insurance company by Kuldeep/complainant himself.

          Nothing has been placed on record by the respondent that one Mohit son of Jeet Ram was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  No medical record of the injured person has been placed on record by the respondent in support of their case.

          The respondent has placed two surveyor report i.e. Ex.R1 dated 3.11.2014 of Perfect Investigators and Ex.R3 dated 29.10.2014 of Star Services.  In these reports, it has been mentioned that the villagers told that Mohit son of Jeet Ram was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident.  In our view, hearsay evidence has no value in the eyes of law.  The respondent must have led cogent and elaborate evidence to prove that at the time of accident, it was Mohit son of Jeet Ram, who was driving the vehicle in question. 

          In the present case, the surveyor Star Services vide his report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,41,540/- after deducting the salvage value and less excess clause.  So, as per authoritative decisions of the Hon’ble Higher Courts, surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  So, the respondent insurance company i.e. respondent no.1 is hereby directed to make the payment of Rs.1,41,540/- to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said payable amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  23.11.2015