Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/72/2021

Jaideep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Axa - Opp.Party(s)

Digvijay Jakhar

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                  Complaint Case No. :  72 of 2021

                                                                   Date of Institution    : 01.04.2021

                                                                   Date of decision:      : 30.07.2024

 

Jaideep son of Sh. Dharambir R/o village Madina, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat-131301, Haryana.

                                                            ...Complainant 

 

                                                    Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor, Hosto Centre, No.43, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560052 through its Manager.

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OPs.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA,  PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of a vehicle Skoda Laura bearing registration no. DL-6CM-2860 got it insured from OP for a period from 29.11.2018 to 28.11.2019 for an IDV of Rs.7,50,000/-. It is stated that the vehicle met with an accident on 17.03.2019 at about 8:30 P.M in the area of village Jatu Luhari while collided with a tractor from behind and also a jeep struck the vehicle of complainant from back side. In the accident, vehicle got damaged badly. The tractor was fled away from the spot, however, no police complaint was made either by driver of the jeep or complainant. Complainant informed OP and on instructions of OP, the vehicle was brought to BLC Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Hisar. Surveyor inspected the vehicle and done spot survey and declared the vehicle as total loss as its repairs cost estimate was Rs.11,20,345/-. Documents as required by surveyor were submitted by complainant but the claim was not settled by the OP.  So, legal notice dated 25.03.2021 was served upon the OP but of no avail. Hence, the present compliant has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 17.03.2019 till final payment. Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of compensation for harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint, estoppel and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle in question was got insured by one Anurag Aggarwal son of Suresh Aggarwal R/o Pitampura, Delhi for the period from 29.11.2018 to 28.11.2019. The vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant, the endorsement of insurance policy has also been made on 08.01.2019. Intimation qua damage to the vehicle was received by OP On 19.03.2019. Surveyor was deputed who vide his letter dated 09.04.2019 asked the complainant to submit various documents viz. spot photos, if any, injury details, if happened provided MLC details, Towing details, insured statement with seating passenger at the time of accident, FIR if any, job card copy, Gate entry, insured PP Photos, Address proof as per policy. But complainant failed to submit the documents to the surveyor despite various reminders in this regard. The OP has submitted that prior to insurance of the vehicle and transfer of insurance policy, the vehicle was examined at Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd. Rohtak and defects were already existed in the vehicle. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence, affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Mr. Sonu Rathi, Legal Manager of OP alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-11 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.

6.                 At the outset, the OP insurance company has denied the claim to the complainant on the grounds that he has not provided the requisite documents with the OP despite various reminders. It is not in dispute that the vehicle the day of alleged accident, the vehicle was under insurance cover having IDV of Rs.7.50 lac. Further as per registration and insurance policy (Annexure C-1 & C-2) respectively the complainant has ownership over the vehicle and is insured in his name. Perusal of estimate of repairs (Annexure C-5) reveals that the repair charges of the vehicle were much more than its IDV. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by repairing the vehicle in question. Complainant in strengthen his case has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002 titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar decided on 09.04.2009. We have carefully gone through this case law.

7.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that there is sufficient material on record to settle the claim of complainant which could be sought by OP insurance company during proceedings of the case but they despite adopting so have complicated the matter by issuing some unwarranted queries. Especially when the vehicle is duly insured with it and the vehicle got damaged in an accident as well as its repairs estimate cost is on the case file. Further, we see flaw on the part of OP insurance company that one side, it is admitting that the vehicle was having some defect prior to issuing insurance policy, however, on the other side, it was insured by them, as such, the OP has tried to use double yard sticks to get the case in their favour which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, we concluded that the vehicle is having total loss and no purpose would be served on repairing the vehicle in question and ends of justice would be met, if the IDV of the vehicle is awarded in favour of complainant alongwith interest thereof and compensation for harassment. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven lacs fifty thousand) as IDV of the vehicle in question, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation and completing all other formalities qua transfer of vehicle in question etc. in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of copy of the order received.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on account of compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 30.07.2024.