1. Brief Facts:

Complainant, vide policy no. 3001/0/204095204/00/000 had got his car (Hyundai Grand I-10 Sportz, RC No. PB-31V-3500, 2019 Manufactured) insured from the OPs. The said policy was valid from 30.08.2020 to 29.08.2021. Copy of the Insurance Policy is Ex. C-1. On 01.06.2021, complainant was driving the said car near Football Chowk, Budhlada, District Mansa and due to the sudden arrival of some stray animals in front of his car, he lost his balance and met with an accident. On 10.06.2021, he got a DDR lodged in this regard with the local police. Complainant submitted that the intimation of this accident was also given to the OPs without any delay and a claim was also lodged alongwith the required documents with OP No. 1. Further, the complainant has submitted that he, on the directions of OP No. 1, had parked the said accidental car at the workshop of OP No. 2 for repairs. 

Thereafter, OP No. 2 charged Rs. 22,763/- to the complainant for repairing the said vehicle (Ex. C-6). Complainant requested the OP No. 1 to pay the repairing charges on his behalf on the ground that the said vehicle had met with an accident during the continuance of the insurance policy issued by the OP No. 1 but OP No. 1 refused to pay the repair charges and repudiated the claim of the complainant (Ex. C-5) and 

1.

aggrieved with that the complainant has preferred the present complaint praying that OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 22,763/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as Litigation expenses.

2. In reply, interalia to various other objections, the OPs mainly have pressed that the alleged accident had occurred on 01.06.2021 whereas the DDR was lodged on 10.06.2021 i.e. after a delay of 9 days; that the claimed damages are too old and they are not matching with the date of loss mentioned in the claim form and the complainant is trying to hide the material facts (Ex. C-5). The same is mentioned in the Surveyor's Report (Ex. OP-8). 

3. Complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. OP No. 1 tendered into evidence the Self-Declaration of Mr. Nishant Gera, Legal Manager and some documents Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/8 and closed the evidence. OP No. 2 has submitted his reply only without any supporting documents/evidence.

4. Parties have also availed sufficient time & opportunities to place on record their written arguments and now, keeping in view the mandate given in the CPA, further adjournments, solely for the purpose of advancing & submitting the arguments by the erring/delaying parties would be undesirable. OP No.1 submitted its written arguments.

5. We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and gone through the oral & documentary evidence placed on record, with their kind assistance.

6. The said vehicle was insured by the OP No. 1. Insurance policy was valid from 30.08.2020 to 29.08.2021 and the alleged accident had 

2.

occurred on 01.06.2021 i.e. during the validity of the insurance policy. So, it is not disputed that the accident didn't occur within the continuance of the insurance policy. It is also not disputed that said accident didn't cause any damages to the said vehicle because the Surveyor of the OP No. 1 himself on affidavit (Ex. OP-8) has submitted that the said vehicle suffered a loss of Rs. 21,763/- due to the alleged accident.

When the fact of the accident during the validity of the insurance policy was within the knowledge of the OP No. 1 from the very beginning then the denial of the entire claim of the complainant merely on the ground of some delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the accident was like taking a hyper technical approach by the OP No. 1.

It is neither the case of the OP No. 1 nor can it be presumed that a person would intentionally damage his recently purchased 2019's car worth Rs. 4 to 5 Lakh just to earn a meager amount of Rs. 21,763 from the insurance company. 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)=II (2010) SLT 672=(2010) 4 SCC 536, had observed that if certain condition of a motor policy is violated, then the claim may be settled on non-standard basis i.e. up to 75% of the otherwise admissible claim. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble National Commission in SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. BALDEV SINGH III (2020) CPJ 336 (NC).

So, when a claim is found genuine on merits then disallowing it on technical grounds is not in consonance with the spirit of consumer protection act. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the OP No. 1 

   3.

was not justifiable. 

7. Resultantly, in view of the above, the present complaint is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to pay 75% of Rs. 22,763 (i.e. repairing charges borne by the complainant) alongwith interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till the date of actual payment to the complainant alongwith consolidated cost and compensation of Rs. 5,000. Further, the OP No. 1 is directed to deposit Rs. 3,000/- as cost in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund of this Commission for this forced litigation. Complaint is dismissed against OP No. 2.

8. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

9. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory limits, due to Covid restrictions, unavailability of quorum and pendency of other cases.

10. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room