Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 351
Instituted on : 01.08.2018
Decided on : 20.03.2024
Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Sher Singh age 62 years r/o H.No.196/17, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak Tehsil and Distt.Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, 165-166, BackbayReclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
- Yashu Enterprises, 189/31, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
...........……Respondent/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDERCONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: None for complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased an Activa Honda bearing no.HR-12-AC-5506 from the authorized dealer and got insured the same from the opposite party on 01.01.2018 for the period 04.01.2018 to 03.01.2019. On 11.06.2018 the active of the complainant was parked in front of his house and suddenly two bulls starting fighting each other and because of that Activa of the complainant came between their fight and got damaged. The complainant intimated the respondent on 12.06.2018 and filed the claim with the opposite party. But the claim was rejected by the opposite party No.1 on the ground that the damages to the vehicle does not match the loss details as reported in the claim form which were signed and submitted by the complainant with the company. The actual damage to the vehicle prima facie appears to be older in time than the date of accident as claimed by the complainant and the actual damage to the vehicle prima facie appears to be caused by multiple incidents rather than a single incident as claimed by you. After the survey of vehicle, complainant got the estimate and got repaired his vehicle and paid an amount of Rs.17392/- on 30.06.2018. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to pay the repair amount of vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from thedate of repair of vehicle and Rs.one lac on account of mental agony & harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite partyNo.1 in its reply has submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation, opposite party appointed surveyor to assess the loss . The surveyor after minute inspection filed his survey report, with the observations that damages of the insured vehicle does not correlate with the cause of accident mentioned in the claim form and there were multiple damages on the vehicle. As such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 22.06.2018 and duly served upon the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.12.2018 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to C6 and closed his evidence on dated 28.02.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.OP1/1 to OP1/5 and closed his evidence on dated 20.07.2021.
4. At the time of arguments ld. Counsel for the complainant did not appear. We have heard learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per para no.2 of the complain vehicle in question got damaged on11.06.2018. Vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1 for the period 04.01.2018 to 03.01.2019 under zero dep. policy. As per complainant he spent an amount of Rs.17392/- on the repair of the vehicle and has filed the claim with the opposite party No.1 . But the opposite party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant on the grounds that:
i).The damage to the vehicle, which according to you, was caused during the accident does not match the loss details as reported in the claim form that you signed and submitted with the company.
ii) The actual damage to the vehicle prima facie appears to be older in time than the date of accident as claimed by you.
iii) The actual damage to the vehicle prima facie appears to be caused by multiple incidents rather than a single incident as claimed by you.
We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Perusal of the photographs placed on record as Ex.OP1/4 itself shows that the vehicle has been damaged from all sides. It does not seem that there are old scratches on the vehicle. Perusal of the survey report placed on record by the opposite party as Ex.OP1/3 shows that the surveyor has given his finding on the ground that the damages were not correlate to the cause of accident or the scratches on the vehicle were intentionally pressed. But the report of surveyor is not based upon the technical or authentic evidence. The report of surveyor is merely based on apprehension. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party No.1 is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. It is also observed that surveyor has admitted in his report that the complainant has submitted an estimatedated 12.06.2018 amounting to Rs.16869/- with him. The complainant has placed on record two bills Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 dated 30.06.2018 amounting to Rs.17392/- to prove the fact that he had spent the above said amount on the repair of his vehicle. As the policy in question is zero dep. policy, hence the complainant is entitled for the claim as per bills amounting to Rs.17392/-.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.17392/-(Rupees seventeen thousand three hundred and ninety two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.08.2018 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
