Punjab

Sangrur

CC/49/2016

Varinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Nem Kumar

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  49

                                                Instituted on:    06.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       14.09.2016

 

Varinder Singh son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, R/O H.No.154, W.No.2, Janta Nagar, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. through its MD/Manager/Authorised person, Regd. Office: Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001.

                                                        ..Opposite party.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Nem Kumar, Adv.

For Opp.party          :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Varinder Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by getting insured his Toyota Innova car bearing registration number HR-29-R-7309 from the OP for Rs.3,00,000/- for the period from 26.08.2014 to 25.06.2015 vide cover note number 3236080 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.15,772/-. It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 25.02.2015 within the area of village Jahangir.  It is further averred that after the accident the complainant immediately intimated the OP about the accident of the car as also to the police, who recorded FIR number 24 dated 26.2.2015 It is further averred that the vehicle in question was got repaired from the agent of the OP i.e. Dhuri Auto Mobiles, Malerkotla Road Dhrui, whereby he spent an amount of Rs.38,639/- vide cash memo number 0960 dated 14.4.2015.  The complainant approached the Op so many times for payment of the claim amount, but all in vain despite all this. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.38,639/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents, that the complainant has concealed the fact that the date of accident is 25.2.2015 and the information was given late, but as per the terms and conditions, the intimation is required to be given immediately to the OP, therefore, it is said that the claim has rightly been repudiated.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP as alleged. Further it is admitted that the vehicle damaged in an accident and intimation of which was also received.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-4 copy of bill dated 14.4.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of order dated 11.3.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of FIR and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Ashutosh Kumar, Ex.OP-2 affidavit of Jasjeet Singh, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter and Ex.OP-5 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question with the OP for Rs.3,00,000/- for the period from 26.08.2014 to 25.06.2015 as is evident from the copy of cover note on record as Ex.C-3.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.02.2015, intimation of which was given to the OP, as such after receipt of the intimation the OP immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report dated 28.03.2015, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,933/-, as is evident from the copy of the survey report on record as Ex.OP-3.

 

6.             It is proved on record that the insured car of the complainant met with an accident on 25.02.2015, wherein the car in question damaged and suffered loss.  In this regard, the stand of the complainant is that the surveyor of the OP assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,933/-, whereas he has spent an amount of Rs.38,639/-, which were paid by the complainant from his own pocket to M/s. Dhuri Automobiles, Dhuri vide bill dated 14.4.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. 

 

7.             Further perusal of the case file shows that the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant intimated the OP only on 20.03.2015, whereas the accident took place on 25.2.2015 in which the car in question was damaged.  But, we are unable to go with this contention of the OP that the complainant intimated the OP on 20.3.2015, as the Op has not even produced on record the copy of the intimation given by the complainant on 20.3.2015 to the OP.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why they withheld this document and why the same was not produced on record.  As such, we feel that the Op has wrongly and with malafide intention has repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant.

 

8.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.38,639/- on account of  loss to the vehicle in question, whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,933/- as is evident from the copy of survey report Ex.OP-5. As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to pay to the complainant the amount as per the survey report i.e. Rs.25,933/-.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,933/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.03.2015 (date of survey report) till realisation.  We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member