ORDER

(Passed on 12 /03/2020)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

                The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against repudation of own damage motor vehicle claim for the reason of non submission of required documents and disputed facts in respect of incident of accident  and thereby claiming compensation amounted to Rs. 3,81,984/- along with interest 18% with compensation and cost amounted to rs. 1,10,000/-.

2.    The facts in short giving rise to this petition are that the complaint purchased Hundai Car i10 bearing no MH-34-AM-7168 in the year 2015 and insured with opposite party 1 future general insurance com. Ltd. Vide policy bearing no. 2017-v5295535-FPV between dt.22/10/17 to 21/10/18 .

3.       On 31/12/17 the complainant”s son along with friends while going to shirdi one vehicle dashed from back side of vehicle. Due to the impact of dash the complainant”s vehicle dashed to the vehicle in front & therefore damaged from front portion. The complainant vehicle sustain damage at polie station darvakaranja dist. Washim at about 11.10 pm. Thereafter vehicle toed with authorized service station at Amaravati. The vehicle was damaged upto  100%.

4.    On 4/1/18 the complainant had filed insurance claim along with requiste document.on 30/1/18 after receipt of intimation of accident, the opposite party  appointed surveyor. The complainant submitted the requisite document”s  for the letters issued 21/2/18,7/3/18 and 14/3/18  by op but the opposite party has closed the file and rejected the claim without reasonable cause On 29/3/18 therefore the act of opposite amounts to deficiency of service hence the petition is filed.

5.      The opposite party filed reply and admitted the insurance policy of complainant and further submitted that as per letter dated 21/2/18,7/3/18 and 14/3/18 the complainant failed to submit the requisite mandatory documents for the letters issued by opposite party hence the closer of insurance claim does not amount to deficiency of service. The manner and mode of accident has been disputed by opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 therefore prayed for the dismissal of complaint with cost.

6.    The counsel for complainant argued that complaint has filed valid driving lience of complainant and alongwithother requisite document with claim and also submitted the requisite document as and when demanded by opposite party  therefore repudation of insurance claim with intention to avoid liability does amounts to deficiency  of service.

7.   The counsel for opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 argued that the complainant fail to submit the requisite document as per demand letters hence closer of insurance file does not amount deficiency of service.

                    Points                                                                                     Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?                                      Yes

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Yes

3.  What order ?                                                                   As per final order..

As to issue No.1 & 2

8.      The complainant”s vehicle bearing no. mh-34-am-7168has been insured with opposite party on date of incident is proved with copy of policy and admission of opposite parties in reply. Hence the complainant is consumer. It is admitted fact that after the incident the complainant intimated incident with insurance company and thereupon a surveyor came to be appointed to submit assessment of loss for the stationed vehicle at service station at Amaravati. The complainant filed insurance claim with opposite party as registered numbered CV869287. The complainant has filed the driver”s vehicle licence along with insurance policy. The registration of vehicle, the towing service charges bill bearing no.1524 dated 1/1/18 from darva to Amaravati amounted to Rs 5,500/-. The opposite party filed photographs of accidental vehicle and some of the bill of repaired vehicle as per list of document dated 10/4/19 but opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 failed to file the surveyor report for the percentage of loss of vehicle . The documents called to submit by opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 vide letter issued dated 21/2/18,7/3/18 and 14/3/18 have been filed on the record by the complainant. Therefore the repudation of insurance claim for the reason of non submission of requisite documents with the intention to avoid the liability does amount to deficiency of service of opposite parties and therefore complainant”s  insurance claim is partly allowed and the opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 is directed to pay the sum assured of the insured value of Rs. 3,81,984/- towards  the full and final settlement of insurance claim on non standard basis for non submission of bills of repair by complainant and surveyor report by insurance company without awarding any claim towards compensation and cost as per following order

Final order

1. The complaint is partly allowed.

2. The opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are  jointly & severally directed to pay Rs. 3,81,984/- on non standard basis of insurance claim without awarding any claim towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute))   (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                      Member                           President

       (DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHANDRAPUR)