Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/523/2010

Ram Dhari S/o Ram Ji Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Aggarwal

11 Dec 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 523 of 2010.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 28.5.2010.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 5.8.2015

Ram Dhari son of Sh. Ramji Lal resident of Village Sadhura, P.O. Bapa, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Claims Department) S.C.O No. 329, Sector-9, Panchkula, through its Manager.
2. Choudhary Iron Store, Bubka Road, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager.                                                                                                                                          …opposite parties.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Harinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 already ex-parte.                 

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Ram Dhari has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the payment of Rs. 9,677.50 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident till its realization on account of repair of Motor Cycle bearing No. HR-02-N-8016, model 2005, which was damaged in a roadside accident.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is the registered owner of Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HR-02N-8016, which was insured with the OP vide cover Note No. BZ0802120854 valid from 25.6.2009 to 24.6.2010 for a sum assured of Rs. 20,000/- and a premium of Rs. 692/- was paid in this regard to the OP No.1 through OP No.2. On 18.11.2009, the Motor Cycle of the complainant met with an accident and badly damaged when the same was driven by his son Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. The complainant immediately informed about the accident to the OP No.1, upon which the

surveyor of the OP No.1 came at the spot, inspected the loss of the vehicle and told to lodge his claim with the OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant went to the OP No.1, lodged his claim bearing No. OC-10/1201-1802-00000957 and completed all the formalities but he was shocked to know that his claim has been repudiated by the OP No.1 vide letter dated 9.1.2010 and 18.1.2010 on the ground that Motorcycle was being driven by one Sh. Angrej Singh at the time of accident and alleged accident took place on 2.11.2009 (instead of 18.11.2009) as per DDR lodged on 9.11.2009 in P.S. Radaur and report of Investigator. As such, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and the complainant has been forced to file this complaint. Lastly, the complainant has prayed to issue direction to the OP No.1 to pay the claim amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of accident till its actual realization and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.2 refused to receive the summon, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 4.8.2010. OP No.1 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, has not come to this Forum with clean hands, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1  and on merit it has been mentioned that an intimation was received by the OP on 24.11.2009 that the motorcycle No. HR-02N-8016 has met with an accident on 18.11.2009 and complainant submitted a claim form to the company reporting that Sanjeev Kumar, his son was the driver of the said motorcycle and Manish Kumar was the pillion rider. The OP company deputed Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Surveyor to survey and assess the loss, if any. The said surveyor conducted the survey of the damaged vehicle on 28.11.2009 and after taking into account assessed the net loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 8578.75, vide his report dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure R-4), subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thereafter, the OP Company deputed Sh. Sachin Gulati, Investigator, who conducted the investigation and submitted his report dated 26.12.2009 to the OP Company, mentioning therein that there is misrepresentation of fact, date and cause of accident and change of driver.  As per report of Investigator dated 26.12.2009 Annexure R-3, the alleged accident took place on 2.11.2009 and Motorcycle in question was driven by one Angrej Singh and Manish Kumar was pillion ridder and in this regard a DDR (Annexure R-2) was lodged on the statement of Angrej Singh in P.S. Radaur on 9.11.2009. In this regard a letter dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure R-5) was sent to the complainant to explain which was replied on 11.1.2010 but the complainant failed to satisfactorily explain the same. Hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated being false by the OPs vide letter dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure R-6). As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance Cover Note as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letter dated 1.1.2010 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of Reply dated 11.1.2010 of letter dated 1.1.2010 as annexure C-4, Photo copy of letter dated 9.1.2010 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 18.1.2010 as Annexure C-6, Photo copies of repair bills as Annexure C-7 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vinod Sharma, INHOUSE Surveyor, as Annexure RX and affidavit of Praman Preet Gujral Assistant Manager Legal as Annexure RY and affidavit of Sachin Gulati as Annexure RZ and documents such as Photo copy of claim form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of DDR as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Investigator report as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of final survey report as Annex. R-4, Photo copy of letter dated 1.1.2010 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 18.1.2010 as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP No.1 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                      It is admitted fact that as per copy of RC (Annexure C-2), the complainant is registered owner of Motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02-N-8016, which was insured with the OP No.1 vide comprehensive policy bearing No. OG-10-1207-1802-00001648 valid from 25.6.2009 to 24.6.2010 for a sum assured of Rs. 20,000/- as per copy of Insurance Policy (Annexure R-7).  

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has spent Rs. 9628/-50 on the repair of motorcycle in question but the OP company has passed only Rs. 8578/-75 is not tenable to our mind as it is settled proposition of law that credence should be given to the surveyor report and the complainant has failed to point of any discrepancy or ambiguity in the surveyor report. The complainant failed to file any report of expert surveyor to prove the amount of Rs. 9628/-75 whereas Op has filed surveyor report Annexure R-4 from which it is clear that there was loss to the tune of Rs. 8578/-75.

9.                     The only plea of the OP Company is that the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02N-8016 was driven by Angrej Singh at the time of alleged accident and the alleged accident took place on 2.11.2009 as per DDR (Annexure R-2) lodged in P.S. Radaur whereas the insured stated that when on 18.11.2009 his sons Sanjeev Kumar was driving the motorcycle and with Manish Kumar as pillion rider were going from his village to Radaur then they met with an accident on the way. Meaning thereby the complainant lodged a false claim with the OP Company by concocting and misrepresenting the true facts by changing the date of accident, cause of accident and even by changing the driver at the time of alleged accident. Even the complainant failed to clarify his position which was sought vide letter dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure R-5) by the OPs.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant tried his best to mould the fact that fresh accident took place on 18.11.2009 instead of 2.11.2009 and motorcycle was driven by Manish Kumar not by Angrej Singh but the contention of the complainant counsel is not tenable because normally, document does not lie but man may do so as the complainant has miserably failed to prove by any documentary evidence i.e. any DDR or FIR or even any MLR in respect of injuries (if any) sustained in accident on 18.11.2009 whereas, as per the facts mentioned in the DDR (Annexure R-2) and Investigation report (Annexure R-3), it is clear that accident took place on 2.11.2009 and motorcycle in question was being driven by Angrej Singh.

11.                   We are of the considered view that the facts mentioned in this complaint and DDR as to who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident are altogether different. It appears that complainant has concocted a false story just to extort the compensation and change the driver of the motorcycle in question due to reason best known to him. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated.  

12.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 5.8.2015.

                       

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.

 

All the 1 to 5 pages of this judgment

are checked and signed by me. 

 

President

5.8.2015.