Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 135.
Instituted on : 03.04.2018.
Decided on : 17.02.2021.
Ranbir Singh son of Sh. Chhatter Singh, r/o VPO Makrauli Khurd District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., office at 1st Floor, 165-166, Backbay, Reclamation HT Parek Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai, through its Manager.
- HDFC Insurance Company Ltd., Office at 2nd Entrance Delhi Bye pass, Rohtak, opposite sector-1, Rohtak-124001, through its Managing/Authorized signatory/Principal Officer.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of car Ritz bearing no.HR-12T-2854 and the same is duly insured with the respondent company under policy no.2311201766179800000 for the period 04.05.2017 to 03.05.2018 and insured value of the vehicle is Rs.333000/-. On 09.11.2017 the alleged car met with an accident while saving and protecting a stray cow which came in front of the vehicle and in this process the accident occurred. No one was injured but vehicle was badly damaged. The vehicle was being driven by the person having valid driving licence to drive the car. The opposite party was informed immediately and car was taken to Naseeb Motors, the mechanic service station. Since the date of accident the car is till parked in the premises of Naseeb Motors and they are charging Rs.500/- as parking charges from the complainant. In this accident, the car was badly damaged and estimate of Rs.250000/- was assessed by the mechanic as well as it was declared fully damaged. The complainant completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party to settle the claim. Opposite party appointed the surveyor to inspect the vehicle and he submitted his report to the company. Complainant received a letter dated 29.01.2018 issued by opposite party company vide which the claim of the complainant has been declined on baseless grounds. Complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the genuine claim amount but opposite parties refused to accede the request of complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.250000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as well as parking charges to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the loss was intimated to the insurance company and the insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Subsequently, an Investigator was also appointed by the answering opposite party to check the admissibility of the claim. During the survey and investigation, it was found that the damages did not commensurate with the cause of the accident. As per the Investigation report dated 02.01.2018, following observations were made: a) Spot of accident as alleged by the complainant could not be confirmed by anyone being a secluded road even during the noon hours, b) As alleged by the complainant, at the time of accident, the insured vehicle had hit a tree and the tree got uprooted as a result of the impact, but the same could not be confirmed as no visible sign of uprooting could be found at the alleged spot. c) During investigation, the insured did not visit the alleged accident spot even once but sent other persons to show the spot. d) Despite heavy loss suffered by the insured as alleged in the complaint, no police intimation has been done by the insured. e) During the investigation, blood stains were found inside the vehicle which implies injury to the driver. But as per the version of the insured in claim form, nobody was injured during the accident. In view of the above discrepancies observed, it can be well inferred that the complainant has tried to made out a false case just to take the benefit of the insurance claim. As such the claim assessed by the surveyor amounting to Rs.205568/- has been rightly repudiated by the answering opposite party vide letter dated 29.01.2018 on the ground of misrepresentation of facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.03.2019. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also tendered document Annexure-JN-A at the time of arguments. Ld. counsel for the opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.09.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After perusal of the documents placed on record it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that it was found that the damages did not commensurate with the cause of the accident. The contention of opposite party is that during investigation, an affidavit regarding the incident has been submitted with the surveyor by the complainant and the same is Ex.R5. There is a major objection in the surveyor report and no claim letter that some blood marks were found inside the vehicle and it was observed that the driver of the said vehicle suffered injuries during this incident. But the insurance company failed to place on record any documentary evidence or photographs to prove that there were some blood stains in the vehicle in question at the time of survey. The other contention of the opposite party is that there was no tree at the spot of the accident and it shows that the spot of the accident was different than shown to the surveyor or insurance company representative but to prove this contention, the insurance company failed to place on record any documentary evidence or technical report before the Commission. Hence the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground, which is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor in his report Ex.R3 amounting to Rs.205568/-. At the time of arguments. ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on record a document Annexure-JN-A, which shows that the Hire Purchase Agreement has been terminated with the Magma Fincorp Ltd.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.205568/-(Rupees two lac five thousand five hundred and sixty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.04.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well 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:
17.02.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
