BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 314 of 2014
Date of Institution: 3.6.2014
Date of Decision: 6.5.2016
M/s. Wazir Singh Enterprises, through its Proprietor Sh. Anudeep Singh Madaan, 68-A, Maqbool Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited having its Registered office at Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Redamation, Mumbai 400 020 and having its Corporate Office at 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059 and also having its Local Branch Office at IIIrd Floor, Nagpal Towers, SCO 128, District Shopping Complex, Amritsar through its Manager/Branch Manager/Person Over All Incharge
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.R.P.Singh,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. M/s. Wazir Singh Enterprises through its Proprietor Sh.Anudeep Singh, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is carrying on his business under the name and style as M/s. Wazir Singh Enterprises and Sh. Anudeep Singh Madaan is the sole proprietor of the complainant firm. The complainant is owner of one BMW car Model-Variant 5-Series-520D SEDAN, having Engine No. 516787, Chassis No. 65065, registration No. PB-02-BC-0023 and the said vehicle was got insured by the complainant from the opposite party in respect of policy No. 2311200550533900001 covering the period from 20.7.2013 to 19.7.2014 i.e. private car package policy on payment of requisite premium. As such the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the opposite party is having its registered office at Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Redamation, Mumbai 400 020 and having its Corporation Office at 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059 and as the matter in question relates to the opposite party having its local office at Amritsar as the impugned insurance policy was issued by the opposite party by its local office at Amritsar. As such the service of the opposite party may be got effected through its local branch . On 16.10.2013 the complainant was going to his office from Ajnala Road and suddenly two bicycles at U-Turn came in front of the car of the complainant . The complainant in order to save the bicyclists turned his abvoesaid vehicle/car on the right side , there was one heavy ply board and the car of the complainant got struck with that. On account of the accident, the car crashed the side, head lights and bonnet of the car in dispute. Besides that one car also came from behind and hit against the car of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that car of the complainant was badly damaged on account of accident and in respect of the accident, requisite intimation was given to the opposite party. It is worthy to mention that vehicle was brought in the workshop/premises of Krishna Automobiles , Ludhiana for effecting necessary repairs and in respect thereof after effecting repairs a bill to the tune of Rs. 4,63,444/- dated 12.11.2013 in the name of the complainant was issued . The complainant made the requisite payment to M/s. Krishna Automobiles. It is pertinent to mention that as the vehicle in question met with accident within the insurance coverage as stated above , as such the opposite party is under obligation to indemnify the complainant regarding the amount incurred by the complainant for effecting repairs etc. At the time of taking insurance policy, the complainant fulfilled all the requirements on the asking of the concerned officials of the opposite party . The complainant also paid requisite premium to the opposite party as per their demand. Earlier at the time of receiving the premium of the insurance policy, opposite party gave no claim bonus benefit to the complainant , but later on the opposite party declared that the complainant is not entitled to benefit of said no claim bonus and as such the opposite party claimed Rs. 10014/- towards premium amount. The complainant also paid the extra premium to the tune of Rs. 10014/- to the opposite party. Although the opposite party was not entitled to the amount of Rs. 10014/-, but even then in order to avoid any difficulty at later stage, complainant paid the amount of Rs. 10014/- to the opposite party which was duly received by them. The complainant is registered owner of the vehicle in question and even the requisite insurance was obtained by the complainant from the opposite party. All the requisite documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party and the query raised by the opposite party was also duly replied . But to the utter surprise of the complainant, opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 29.10.2013 on the basis of false and frivolous ground and as such repudiation is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and without any basis. The complainant had claimed the following reliefs from the opposite party as stated below:-
i) To pay the sum of Rs. 4,63,444/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the complainant .
ii) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment being caused by the opposite party.
iii) To pay costs of litigation.
iv) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under law and equity.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party is duly served but non put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party despite due service, as such opposite party was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. However, during the course of proceedings on 28.7.2014 Sh.R.P.Singh, Adv. appeared on behalf of the opposite party and joined the proceedings at that stage.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Harsimranjit Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of letter sent by HDFC Ergo Gen. Insu.Co. Ex.C-2, copy of the Insurance policy in the name of M/s. Wazir Singh Enterprises for the period from 20.7.2013 to 19.7.2014 Ex.C-3 , another copy of insurance Ex.C-4, copy of service proforma invoice pertaining to Wazir Singh Enterprises Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of tax invoice containing two pages Ex.C-7, copy of account statement Ex.C-8, copy of tax invoice Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, copy of retail sales invoice Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.R.P.Singh, Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Kumar Ex.OP1, copy of survey report Ex.OP2, copy of acknowledgement slip Ex.OP3, repudiation letter dated 29.10.2013 Ex.OP4, copy of policy Ex.OP5, affidavit of Rahul Sethi, surveyor and loss assessor Ex.OP6, copy of proposal form Ex.OP7, terms and conditions Ex.OP8, survey report Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that vehicle bearing registration No. PB-02-BC-0023 in the name of the complainant was insured with the opposite party vide insurance cover, copy whereof is Ex.C-3 which was valid from 20.7.2013 to 19.7.2014. It is also not disputed that accident of the car in dispute took place on 16.10.2013 and the car was taken to the workshop/premises of Krishna Automobiles, Ludhiana for effecting necessary repairs and after effecting necessary repairs a bill to the tune of Rs. 4,63,444/- dated 12.11.2013 , copy whereof is Ex.C-9 was issued in the name of the complainant. It is also not disputed that surveyor Sh. Rahul Sethi was appointed by the opposite party to assess the loss of the vehicle and the surveyor submitted his report Ex.OP2 dated 15.11.2013 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,62,033/-. But, however, the Insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.10.2013, copy whereof is Ex.OP4 on the ground that the claim was repudiated as the insured had intentionally mis-represented regarding the previous policy in order to get the benefit of NCB. Consequently his claim was repudiated. But,however, in the case in hand no written statement was filed by the opposite party to contest the claim of the complainant. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. The evidence adduced by the opposite party without filing any written statement is of no avail. However, repudiation of the claim made by the opposite party is also not in accordance with law. Although at the first instance, the opposite party gave a rebate of NCB to the tune of Rs. 10014/-. But, however, the amount to the tune of Rs. 10014/- was re-paid by the complainant on the insistence of the opposite party and therefore, to say that any NCB benefit of the earlier insurance policy was availed by the complainant, has no takers as the opposite party acquiesced to that by accepting additional payment to the tune of Rs. 10014/- from the complainant. Therefore, there was absolutely no valid ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant on account of the fact that some benefit of NCB was obtained by the complainant in some previous policy. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the complainant suffered a statement dated 6.5.2016 wherein he has stated that the complainant may be granted 75% amount on non-standard basis.
7. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the opposite parties are deficient in service. The claim of the complainant is liable to be allowed on non standard basis in view of the report submitted by the surveyor because the report of the surveyor cannot be brushed aside without cogent reasons.
8. Consequently, the complaint succeeds and the complainant is granted insurance claim on non standard basis at the rate of 75% out of claim of Rs. 2,62,033/- as assessed by the surveyor. The complainant is also awarded interest on the awarded amount from the date of passing of the order @9% p.a. until full and final recovery. Cost of the complaint are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 6.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
