Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 89
Instituted on : 05.02.2021.
Decided on : 20.09.2022,
Ram Kumar Joon @ Ramkanwar Joon age-70 yrs. S/o Shri Ram R/o Village Nuna Majra District Jhajjar at present 16BG Block Utti Pitam Pura Pitampur North West DL110034
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 7th Floor, Block No.4, DLF Tower-15, Sivaji Marg, New Delhi 110015
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Shakti Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had obtained insurance policy of his vehicle Make-HONDA CIVIC, bearing Registration No.DL-3CBA-2846 Model 2008 from the opposite party vide policy No.00032783 for the period 10.06.2019 to 09.06.2020 with the insured amount of Rs.4,88,000/-. On 22.05.2020 the car was being driven by Naveen S/o Tanbir Singh , suddenly the car met with an accident in order to save a motorcycle and caught fire. Naveen jumped out from the window of the car and saved his life. After that complainant made a telephonic call on 100 and 101 number. A case was registered vide NCR No.0017/2020 dated 23.05.2020 at PS Kalanaur District Rohtak. Intimation regarding the accident was also given to the opposite party telephonically. The officials of the opposite party visited the spot and completed all the requisite formalities. The vehicle was also inspected by the surveyor on the spot and the photographs of the damaged vehicle were taken by the spot surveyor of the opposite party. All the relevant documents required by opposite party were handed over to the surveyor as well as insurance company. On the direction of the surveyor complainant took the vehicle for repair at Vishwkarma Motors, Gurgaon where the mechanic made an estimate of Rs.11,62,802/- regarding repair and Rs.10,000/- spent on the transportation of the damaged vehicle from the place of accident to Gurgaon. The estimate of amount of Rs.1162802/- was handed over to surveyor of the opposite party. After some time the surveyor told the complainant that the opposite party has settled the claim and a sum of Rs.4,88,000/- will be paid to him within a week and obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank papers. Thereafter complainant approached to opposite party many times but they neither paid the compensation nor repudiated the claim. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the an amount of Rs.4,88,000/- alongwith interest @ of 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation charges as explained in relief clause by the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the date of alleged loss is 22.05.2020 but the same has been intimated to them only on 23.06.2020 i.e. after 62 days. It is further submitted that they have appointed an independent surveyor promptly on receipt of the claim intimation and the surveyor has made an assessment of loss to the tune of Rs.4,68,225/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that they sent many letters to complainant mentioning therein that:- “It has already been offered to you to get the vehicle replaced of same make, model and manufacturing year. We request you to please confirm the availability of the vehicle of same make and model at your end or allow us to get the same for you.” But the complainant failed to respond to the said letters. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any claim and close the claim on the ground of non-cooperation from the insured/complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.01.2022. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.04.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. The vehicle in question met with an accident and caught fire. First of all it is considered that whether the vehicle is repairable or not. As per complainant, in para no.3 of the complaint, it is submitted that: “On the direction of surveyor the owner of the vehicle took the damaged vehicle for repair at Vishwkarma Motors shop no.17 Rajiv Nagar Gurgaon and Vishwkarma Motors make an estimate of Rs.1162802/- regarding repair and amount of Rs.10000/- were spent on the transportation of the damaged vehicle from the place of accident to Gurgaon”. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company placed on record a survey report Ex.R9. As per this report the net assessment amount comes to Rs.468825/- and IDV of the vehicle is Rs.488000/-. So the damaged vehicle comes under the category of total loss.
6. The claim of the complainant has not been paid by the respondent insurance company and the respondent insurance company vide its letter dated 05.03.2021 has repudiated the same on the ground that: “There is substantial and unexplained delay between the actual date and time of accident and the intimation to our office about the reported loss. As per claim intimation to our call center the date of accident is 22.05.2020, but you have informed us after more than 62 days. As per our policy condition no.1, Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall given all such information and assistance as the company shall require.” Meaning thereby, information has been given to the company belatedly regarding the accident.
7. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Perusal of documents shows that accident took place on dated 22.05.2020 at about 10.00 P.M. An information has been made on telephone no.100 and 101. Thereafter complaint has been made with the concerned police station vide NCR No.0017/2020 dated 23.05.2020 in P.S.Kalanaur, District Rohtak by Naveen s/o Sh. Tanbir Singh. As per the respondent the information regarding the incident has been given on 23.06.2020 i.e. after delay of 32 days(whereas the same has been wrongly mentioned as 62 days in the written statement). We have minutely perused the documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R8. The perusal of these documents shows that the insurance company is ready to replace the vehicle of the complainant with same make, model and manufacturing year. As per condition no.3 of the Private Car package policy, “The company may at its own option repair reinstate or replace the vehicle or part thereof and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the company shall not exceed.” So the insurance company was ready to replace the vehicle but the offer has not been accepted by the complainant. After that finally the claim of the complainant has been repudiated after considering the policy condition no.1 regarding delayed intimation to the company about the theft. Regarding the delayed intimation to the company, we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.1069 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2022 titled as Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 decided on 13.09.2021 in case titled as Dharamender Vs. UIIC, as well as Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “When insured lodged FIR immediately after theft of a vehicle occurred and when police after investigation have lodged a final report after vehicle was not traced and when surveyors/investigators appointed by insurance company found claim of theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny claim-Lodging of FIR on same day theft occurred-Therefore, denial of claim set aside”. The law cited above, are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case also, FIR was lodged on the very next day of theft. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehice to the complainant. As per cover note Ex.C2, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.488000/- and after deducting the salvage value of vehicle, which we have assessed as Rs.40000/-, the loss comes to Rs.448000/-.
8. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the compliant and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.448000/- (Rupees four lac forty eight thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.02.2021 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. However complainant is directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. and opposite party shall comply with the order dated 20.09.2022 of this Commission within one month.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.09.2022.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
