DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.277 of 14-06-2011 Decided on 31-10-2011
Sukjit Singh son of Sh. Hrachand Singh, R/o H.No.15103/1, Near Gurdawara, Kothe Sucha Singh, Bathinda, aged about 50 years. .......Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006, through its M.D./Manager/Chairman. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Zonal Head Office, New Delhi, through its D.M./Zonal Manager, C- 31-31, Ist Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company, through its Manager/ Incharge, G.T. Road, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. O.P.Vinocha, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. Rajan Singla, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of Truck bearing registration No.HR-46-A-9431, Model 2001 which was insured with opposite parties vide policy No.OG-10-9995-1803-00061181 dated 12.01.2010. On 23.08.2010, the above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident while on its way from Bathinda to Moga with consignment of Fertilizer and due to sudden dead stop of Truck which was going ahead of the truck of the complainant and the same was being driven by Jagga Singh S/o Bant Singh, having valid driving license bearing No. 6880 dated 10.05.2006, issued by Distt. Transport Officer, Bathinda which was got renewed upto 09.05.2012 vide renewal entry No.40286 dated 12.06.2009. The complainant gave the verbal information to the opposite party No.3 on 23.08.2010 and informed to Head Office through E-mail. Thereafter, Kulwant Singh of Ferozepur, was appointed as surveyor who completed all the formalities and all the documents were given to him. Thereafter, the surveyor inspected the vehicle and took photographs of the vehicle and prepared a survey report and submitted his report to the opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 31.08.2010 from the opposite party No.2 in which it had been mentioned that the R.C. of the vehicle is short. The complainant again supplied the same to the surveyor who sent it to the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant and no intimation was given by the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that he has suffered the loss of Rs.53,435/- for repairing his vehicle. The complainant supplied all the bills to the surveyor. The complainant has also served a legal notice to the opposite parties for settling his claim but to no avail. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their written statement and pleaded that the complainant has never informed the opposite parties regarding the accident of his vehicle rather on 26.08.2010, the complainant intimated the call center of the opposite parties regarding the accident on 24.08.2010. On the same day i.e. 26.08.2010, the opposite parties deputed Sh. Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss. When, the surveyor visited the workshop, he found that the vehicle in question was already dismantled and was in under repair condition which proves that the vehicle had not met with an accident and the complainant wants to take benefits of wear and tear of his vehicle and any loss suffered by his own negligence. The claim Form was filled and signed by the complainant and he mentioned the date of loss/accident as 23.08.2010 instead of 24.08.2011 which was intimated by driver Jagga Singh. On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that the insurance was strictly subject to terms and conditions of the policy that the insured/complainant will inform the insurer immediately after the accident but the complainant has failed to comply with this condition. The complainant has submitted the estimates and documents only after issuing the letter dated 31.08.2010 by the opposite parties but the surveyor was unable to assess the loss as there was neither spot survey of vehicle nor police report was available nor the vehicle was inspected after the accident rather when, the surveyor visited the workshop for assessing the loss, the vehicle was already dismantled and was in under repair condition, so he could not assess the exact loss of the vehicle. The opposite parties have denied that the claim is still pending rather the claim was closed on 15.09.2010 after calling the explanation regarding removal of the vehicle from the spot and dismantled the vehicle without intimating the opposite parties to ascertain the loss of the vehicle. But the complainant did not bother to reply or give any explanation regarding removal of the vehicle from the spot and dismantling of the vehicle. The complainant also did not submit the cash memo of repair of his vehicle. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. On 23.08.2010, the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-46-A-9431, Model 2001 which was fully insured with opposite parties vide Insurance policy No.OG-10-9995-1803-00061181 met with an accident while on its way from Bathinda to Moga with consignment of Fertilizer and due to dead stop Truck which was going ahead of the truck of the complainant. The said truck was being driven by Jagga Singh who is having valid driving license bearing No.6880 dated 10.05.2006 issued by District Transport Officer, Bathinda. His driving license was got renewed upto 09.05.2012 vide renewal entry No.40286 dated 12.06.2009 and verbal information was given to the opposite party No.3 on 23.08.2010 and it further informed the Head Office through E-mail. The Surveyor Kulwant Singh of Ferozepur was appointed on receipt of intimation of the accident. He has completed all the formalities and documents concerning the vehicle and photographs of the vehicle were also taken by the surveyor and submitted his report to the Zonal Head Office i.e. opposite party No.2. The complainant received a letter dated 31.08.2010 from the opposite party No.2 regarding the copy of R.C. It was again supplied as demanded and the surveyor sent the same to the opposite parties but the claim of the complainant has not been settled till date. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.53,435/- for repairing his vehicle. The bills were also supplied to the surveyor by the complainant. The opposite parties were legally bound to disburse the claim of the complainant within reasonable time. The complainant has also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but no reply has been given by the opposite parties to the said legal notice. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant had never informed the opposite parties regarding the accident of the Truck bearing No.HR-46-A-9431 rather on 26.08.2010, the complainant intimated the call center of the opposite parties regarding the said accident on 24.08.2010. On receipt of information regarding the accident, on 26.08.2010, the opposite parties have deputed Sh. Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss and when, he visited the workshop, he found that the vehicle in question was already dismantled and was in under repair condition which shows that the vehicle was not met with an accident and the complainant wants to take benefits of wear and tear of his vehicle and any loss suffered by his own negligence. The claim Form filled and signed by the complainant shows the date of loss/accident as 23.08.2010 instead of 24.08.2011 which was intimated by driver Jagga Singh. The opposite parties have submitted that the insurance is strictly subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the insured/complainant has to inform the insurance company immediately after the accident so that the vehicle will be get inspected or informed the police station but the complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The complainant has never informed the opposite parties regarding the accident of the vehicle in question on 23.8.2010 or for any other date. The complainant is alleging that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 23.08.2010 rather on 26.08.2010 the complainant had intimated the opposite parties regarding the accident of the truck that had occurred on 24.08.2010. The complainant has also misstated the facts that the opposite parties have issued a letter dated 31.08.2010 for completing the formalities i.e. photocopy of R.C. only. The complainant has submitted the estimates and documents only after issuing the letter dated 31.08.2010 by the opposite parties but the surveyor of the insurance company was unable to assess the loss because there was no spot survey of vehicle, neither the police report was available nor the vehicle was inspected after accident. Moreover, Sh. Kulwant Singh, Surveyor visited the workshop for assessing the loss where the vehicle was already in dismantled condition. In this condition, it is difficult to assess the loss rather the complainant has taken his vehicle for repair and the vehicle was under repair for the wear and tear and negligent handling of the vehicle. The opposite parties have further submitted that the complainant has pleaded that his claim is pending whereas the claim of the complainant was closed on 15.09.2010 after calling the explanation regarding removal of the vehicle from the spot and got dismantled the vehicle without intimating the opposite parties to ascertain the loss of the vehicle but the complainant did not bother to reply the explanation. 7. The complainant has placed on file photographs vide Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-32. A perusal of these photographs shows that there is normal wear and tear of the vehicle as there are scratching on Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18. The complainant has alleged that his vehicle met with an accident but no FIR has been lodged regarding the said accident of his vehicle. The complainant has not given intimation with regard to the accident immediately rather he has given the intimation on 26.08.2010, that too he intimated the call center of the opposite parties regarding the accident of the truck. Sh. Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer was deputed by the opposite parties to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss but when he visited the workshop, he found that the vehicle in question has already dismantled and in repair condition which shows that the vehicle did not meet with accident and the complainant wants to take benefits of wear and tear of his vehicle and any loss suffered of his own negligence. In the claim Form filled and signed by the complainant, he has mentioned the date of loss/accident 23.08.2010 instead of 24.08.2010 which was intimated by the complainant. 8. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant has to inform the opposite parties immediately after the accident but the complainant has failed to inform the opposite parties immediately. The complainant has submitted the estimates and documents after receipt the letter from the opposite parties dated 31.08.2010. 9. Ex.R-4 which is the final survey report. The relevant portion of final survey report is reproduced as under:- Description of Loss:- Near the spot of accident, two another vehicle were going ahead. From one of them one vehicles tyre/wheel pulled out and vehicle soped in that motion try to avoid collision steered the IV but LHS of IV collied with another vehicle. September 16, 2010 Final Survey Report Claim ID:3573597 Claim No:OC-11-1203-1803-00000094 Customer Name: Sukjit Singh Registration No:HR46A9431 Surveyor Comments:- IV was in dismantling condition at time of initial survey and also no spot survey arranged unable to assess the loss. All documents checked. As per vehicle registration certificate, Tax paid upto 31.12.09. Document Checklist Claim No. OC-11-1203-1803-00000094 Description Enclosed (Yes/No) Description Enclosed (Yes/No) | Registration Cert. Yes Repairer Estimate Yes Load Challan No Satisfaction Voucher Yes Fitness Cert. No TL Report No Road_Permit No TP Loss Report No Salvage Photo Yes Driving License Yes Photo Yes |
When Kulwant Singh, Surveyor went for conducting the final survey to the vehicle, it was already dismantled. In such circumstances, it was difficult to ascertain whether the vehicle actually met with an accident or not. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 15.09.2010 Ex.R-11 on the ground mentioned below:- “You have deliberately removed the vehicle from the spot of accident without intimating us and without our consent. Thus you have deprived us an opportunity to ascertain the necessary facts related to the accident including without limitation, cause of loss, circumstances and quantum of loss, required to decide admissibility of claim. After receiving the intimation on 26.09.2010, we immediately deputed the surveyor Kulwant Singh who visited the workshop where vehicle was placed for repairs. During the inspection, he found that the vehicle was already dismantled without giving us an opportunity to inspect the vehicle in order to ascertain the exact cause of loss and damages occurred. Please explain in writing within 7 days from the date of this letter as to why your claim should not be repudiated for the above cited reason.” 10. As per condition provided under Standard Form for Commercial Vehicle Package Policy which has been mentioned as under:- “This policy and the schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this policy or of the schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction or the offender.” 11. The complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy as he has to inform the opposite parties regarding the accident immediately but he has failed to inform the opposite parties immediately rather he has informed the opposite parties when the vehicle has already been dismantled. The onus lies on the complainant to prove that his vehicle met with an accident and he has to give the intimation in time. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. The support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled Rugha Ram Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2009(1)CPC 498, wherein it has been held:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) & 14(1)(d) – Insurance Claim – Damage of machinery – Cause given for damage to plant and machinery was given that if was hit by running vehicle – the vehicle was running on main road which was at a distance – Complainant misrepresented the material facts relating to damage of plant and machinery – Repudiation of claim justified – Relief denied.” Further, the support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Raj Tile Works, 2009(3)CPC 620, wherein it has been held:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15 & 14 (1)(d) – Insurance policy – Complainant obtained insurance policy of Rs.52.60 Lacs covering risk of tiles factory against loss on account of accidental “Impact by any rail/road vehicle or animal” - But when a truck while unloading the stock was taking reverse turn it dashed against a stone pillar resulting in collapse of three compartments of the storage structure – State Commission allowing the complaint directed petitioner company to pay a claim of Rs.11,19,760/- with 12& p.a. interest with cost of Rs.3,000/- which is under challenge – Held, as State Commission did not take into consideration relevant evidence to reach its conclusion, its order cannot be sustained – Merely that surveyor gave his report at belated stage without denying the soil to judge the condition of pillars, his report cannot be ignored – The report that pillars collapsed by itself cannot be ignored – it was not for the surveyor to prove by cogent evidence as to what was the reason of collapsing of pillar – Onus lies on the claimant to prove the collapse of structure and loss caused thereby which he failed to prove – Impugned order cannot be sustained – Complaint dismissed.” 12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 31-10-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member | 
