Haryana

Sonipat

CC/276/2015

Ramehar S/o Jug Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

KAMAL HOODA

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.276 of 2015

Instituted on: 13.08.2015                 

Date of order: 15.07.2016

 

Ramehar son of Jug Lal, resident of village Rajpur, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, City Centre, Opp. IB College, GT road, near Bank of Rajasthan, Panipat.

2.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered office at 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 through its Regional Manager.

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.Kamal Hooda Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondents.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          J.L. Gupta-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Renault/Scala RXZ Car no.HR-60E-0525 and the same was insured with the respondents and unfortunately, on 9.1.2015, the said vehicle has met with an accident.  DD no.33 dated 9.1.2015 was recorded by the police.  The car of the complainant was badly damaged due to the said accident.  The complainant has informed the respondent no.1 in this regard, who has deputed the surveyor for assessing the loss.  The said surveyor has made his report as total loss after inspection of the vehicle.  The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondents and has completed all the required formalities by submitting all the required documents.  The complainant has requested the respondents so many times, but of no use.  However, in the month of 3/15, the respondent informed the complainant that the claim of the complainant was repudiated.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that during the investigation made by the respondents and as per the surveyor report, it was observed that damages to the vehicle in question are not matching with the cause and nature of loss as mentioned in the claim form and damages are intentionally aggravated to higher extent for dive out benefits of insurance.  In the claim form, the complainant declared that a neel cow came running in front of the vehicle and the vehicle got unbalance & hit against the divider and rolled 2-3 times and fell into the road side ditches whereas during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said vehicle met with an accident with other vehicle and got damages.  All other damages to the vehicle in question do not co-relate with the cause and nature of the accident.  The complainant has concealed the material facts and has made a false & baseless story and lodged the DDR on false facts.  The complainant has also failed to submit the police report and other medical records in support of his claim.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondent.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the complainant is the registered owner of Renault/Scala RXZ Car no.HR-60E-0525 and the same was insured with the respondents and unfortunately, on 9.1.2015, the said vehicle has met with an accident.  DD no.33 dated 9.1.2015 was recorded by the police.  The car of the complainant was badly damaged due to the said accident.  The complainant has informed the respondent no.1 in this regard, who has deputed the surveyor for assessing the loss.  The said surveyor has made his report as total loss after inspection of the vehicle.  The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondents and has completed all the required formalities by submitting all the required documents but despite this, the respondent has repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that during the investigation made by the respondents and as per the surveyor report, it was observed that damages to the vehicle in question are not matching with the cause and nature of loss as mentioned in the claim form and damages are intentionally aggravated to higher extent for dive out benefits of insurance.  In the claim form, the complainant declared that a neel cow came running in front of the vehicle and the vehicle got unbalance & hit against the divider and rolled 2-3 times and fell into the road side ditches whereas during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the said vehicle met with an accident with other vehicle and got damages.  All other damages to the vehicle in question do not co-relate with the cause and nature of the accident.  The complainant has concealed the material facts and has made a false & baseless story and lodged the DDR on false facts.  The complainant has also failed to submit the police report and other medical records in support of his claim.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondent.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, the insurance of the complainant’s vehicle by the respondents is not disputed.  The vehicle has met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy and this fact has also not been disputed by the respondents. 

          In the present case, the vehicle has met with an accident and suffered damages.  The perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties shows that the vehicle was badly damaged, but as per the document Annexure C-1/R-1, claim of the complainant was not payable as per terms and condition no.8 of the insurance policy.  The main contention of the respondents is that they have deputed the surveyor and have verified the manner of accident and as per the surveyor report, the present damages in the vehicle has occurred due to the accident in between two vehicles.  So, the facts  were not co-related with the version narrated by the complainant.  As per the surveyor, the vehicle has suffered damages to the tune of Rs.4,97,849/-.  The respondents in support of their case has tendered the affidavit and documents R1 to R3.  It is admitted by the respondents that the vehicle has damaged due to accident either between two vehicles or due to turned-turtle and the complainant has suffered a loss.  The

The vehicle was insured with the respondents with IDV of Rs.7,50,000/- and the said amount has been claimed by the complainant from the respondents.  The surveyor of the respondents has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,97,849/-.  In our view, the respondents are liable to make the payment of Rs.497849/- as per the report of their surveyor.  It has also been held by the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commissions that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  So, taking into consideration the report of the surveyor, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.five lacs) in lumpsum to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati) (JL Gupta)         (Nagender Singh)

Member         Member             President

                               DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 15.07.2016