DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 181/2016
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUNJAB SINGH S/o SH. RAMEHER SINGH,
R/o VILLAGE-BHASWAN KHURD,
TEHSIL-GOHANA,
DISTRICT-SONIPAT(HARYANA).… COMPLAINANT
Versus
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2nd FLOOR, BIGJO’S TOWER, A-8,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 25.01.2016 Date of decision:25.06.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. HR-11-E-1987, Eicher Tractor, Model-2012, engine no. 52525, chassis no. 45216 and the same was insured by OP vide policy no.
CC No. 181/2016 Page 1 of 7
FCV/I1461825/12/12/D1124B dated 14.12.2013. On 16.12.2013, between 8 A.M. to 9 A.M. two persons namely Sharif and Sudama were going to fill the diesel in the vehicle and when they reach near the Bhaswan Chowk one trailer coming from Rohtak side and being driven rashly hit the vehicle of the complainant in which the tractor was badly damaged as well as Sudama was badly injured in that accident and the this regard a FIR bearing no. 337/2013 dated 17.12.2013 u/s 279/337 IPC was lodged at P.S. Baralida, Sonepat, Haryana. Thereafter, the accident the complainant approached OP for the claim and all the original documents were submitted with OP and OP carried out a survey through a representative. The complainant further alleged that OP denied for claim of the complainant for repairing the tractor, then the complainant approached the office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Delhi but the same was rejected by the concerned office on the plea of OP that the previous insurance of the complainant which was insured by the Oriental Ins. Co. vide policy no. 215390/31/2012/3066 which on verification has been found to be fake. The complainant further alleged that to note that at the time of giving the policy, OP has not raised any objection regarding the previous policy as they know the complainant is having previous policy of another insurance company and the complainant received a call from OP for the
CC No. 181/2016 Page 2 of 7
renewal of the policy and the representative of OP came to the house of the complainant and collected the premium of the policy and sent the cover note of the policy to the complainant and there is no question that the complainant gave a fake or original policy and the same thing also happened with the previous insurance company as the representative collected the premium and gave the cover note to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the another reason for rejection of the claim taken by OP is that the intimation of the accident sent to OP by the complainant after delay of 18 days which is not appropriate as the complainant is a layman and is not aware about the rules and regulations of the insurance company and the complainant was worried about Sudama the person who was badly injured in the accident and referred to the PGI Rohtak for better treatment and due to the said act of the OP the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying fordirection to OP to pay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as claim/repairing cost of the vehicle/tractor alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. as well as to pay damages & compensation of Rs.1 lakh on account of mental harassment, agony and financial loss and has also sought Rs.51,000/- towards litigation cost.
CC No. 181/2016 Page 3 of 7
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that the vehicle Eicher Tractor having registration no. HR-11-E-1987 was insured with OP vide policy no. FCV/I1461825/12/12/D1124B for the period from 14.12.2013 to 13.12.2014 subject to terms & conditions contained therein and the IDV of the vehicle as per policy was Rs.2,92,000/- and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that the contract of insurance is based on doctrine of “Uberrima Fides” which means “utmost good fath” and it is the name given to legal doctrine which governs insurance contracts and in order to avoid inspection of vehicle and to show the continuity of policy, the complainant submitted the copy of policy no. 215390/3/2012/3066 issued by M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and it is interalia declared there in as under: “1/we hereby declare that the statements, answers given by me/us in this proposal form are true to the best of my knowledge belief. It is hereby understood and agreed that the statements, answers and particulars provided herein above are the basis on which this insurance be being granted and that if after the insurance is effected, it is found that any of the statements, answers or particulars are incorrect or untrue in any respect the company shall have no liability under the insurance”. OP further submitted after receipt of claim on 03.02.2014 (of loss dated
CC No. 181/2016 Page 4 of 7
16.12.2013) OP got the policy purported to be issued by OIC verified through its surveyor N.L. Sharma and Associates who verified the policy from concerned office submitted his report dated 02.07.2014 mentioning therein that OIC policy as submitted by the complainant is not genuine and that policy no. 215390/3/2012/3066 was issued in the name of Raj Kumar. The OP accordingly submitted that there is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of order dated 30.06.2015 of BimaLokpal Office, copy of FIR no. 337 dated 17.12.2013, copy of letter dated nil sent by OP to the complainant, copy of insurance policy no. FCV/I1461825/12/12/D112B, copy of receipt no. 86 dated 29.12.2013, copies of receipts no. 3832 dated 28.02.2014 & receipt no. nil dated 14.12.2013, copy of receipt no. 8576 dated 03.02.2014, copy of receipt no. 46 dated 15.02.2014 and copies of receipt no. 2564 dated 06.01.2014, receipt no. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 & 125 dated 01.03.2014.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP Ms. Shiwali Sharma, Legal Officerfiled her affidavit which is on the basis of the reply of OP. An
CC No. 181/2016 Page 5 of 7
affidavit of Sh. Manu Mehta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor appointed by OP has also been filed and he assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,17,583/- (after deduction excess and applying depreciation). OP also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP.There is no genuineness and merits in the defence of the OP in view of the report of the surveyor and assessor and OP ought to have passed the claim of the complainant as per the report of the surveyor and assessor and the OP ought to have allowed the claim of the complainant as per report of the surveyor. OP has declined the claim of the complainant and the said action of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,17,583/- being the loss assessed by the surveyor and assessor.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
CC No. 181/2016 Page 6 of 7
9. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 25thday of June, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 181/2016 Page 7 of 7
