BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.263/12.
Date of instt.: 11.10.2012.
Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.
Parvesh Amar son of Baldev Amar, resident of H.No.1497, Behind Jat School, Rishi Nagar, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.237, 2nd Foor, Sector-12, Karnal.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.C-9, 3rd floor, Pearl Best Heights-II, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi.
3. Vaibhav Bansal Chhotu Ram Chowk, near Palki Hotel, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Navneet Dhull, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
None for Op No.3.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his car Ford Figo bearing registration No.HR-08N/3259 through Op No.3 with the Ops No.1 and 2 vide policy No.2311200263762400000 valid w.e.f. 16.05.2012 to 15.05.2013. It is alleged that the vehicle of complainant met with an accident near Hindu School Chowk, Kaithal on 11.06.2012 and the said vehicle was damaged badly. It is further alleged that on 19.06.2012, the Ops sent the surveyor Sh. B.B.Chawla to assess the loss, who surveyed the vehicle. It is further alleged that the said vehicle was got repaired by the complainant from Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal and spent more than Rs.1,38,908/- on the repair. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary bills and documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 29.08.2012. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the claim under the policy in question in respect of damage of car bearing No.HR08M-3259 was repudiated since the damages claimed in the accident were unrelated to the date and cause of accident reported in the claim form duly signed by the complainant and the actual damage does not commensurate with the cause of loss and they were pre-existed damaged. This fact has been duly based upon the report of independent surveyor Sh. B.B.Chawla, who submitted his report dt. 30.072012. Since the damages were unrelated to the cause of loss and date being pre-existed damages, the file was rightly closed and no claim under intimation to the complainant vide letter dt. 20.08.2012. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the written statement on the same line as of Ops No.1 and 2 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely. None appeared on behalf of Op No.3 at the time of arguments.
6. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his car Ford Figo bearing registration No.HR-08N/3259 through Op No.3 with the Ops No.1 and 2 vide policy No.2311200263762400000 valid w.e.f. 16.05.2012 to 15.05.2013. The vehicle of complainant met with an accident near Hindu School Chowk, Kaithal on 11.06.2012 and the said vehicle was damaged badly. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 vehemently contends that the claim under the policy in question in respect of damage of car bearing No.HR08M-3259 was repudiated since the damages claimed in the accident were unrelated to the date and cause of accident reported in the claim form duly signed by the complainant and the actual damage does not commensurate with the cause of loss and they were pre-existed damaged. This fact has been duly based upon the report of independent surveyor Sh. B.B.Chawla, who submitted his report dt. 30.072012. The Ops have also placed the copy of surveyor report (Ex.R2) on the file wherein he has mentioned in the conclusion that the damages as claimed vide claim no.C230012026168 are unrelated to the cause of loss and date being the pr-existed damages. We are constrained to tell you that we are closing this claim in our record as ‘no claim’. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.11.05.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
