DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 172/2022

Date of Institution: 31.03.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 04.01.2024

Judgment Passed on: 28.02.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Judgment By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By the present judgment the Commission is disposing off the complaint by the complainant alleging deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP for illegally and arbitrary rejecting the claim of his vehicle, damaged in Road Accident.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased Maruti Baleno Car, the subject vehicle, for personal use of its director& has obtained a valid comprehensive car insurance policy with OP valid from 28.06.2020 to 27.06.2021. During the validity of the insurance policy, the subject vehicle, had met with an accident and was severally damaged.At the time of the accident the subject vehicle was being driven by the driver namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar.The complainant had immediately lodged its claim with OP, who had in turn conducted the survey and investigation & has taken statement dated 25.01.2021 of its director and driver namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar, regarding the occurrence of the accident, name of the person driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident and other details.In the said statement, it had been unequivocally stated that the subject vehicle was being driven by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the driver, at the time of accident and clarified the confusion raised with respect to the name of the driver at the time of accident by providing complete details of the accident.
2. OP, upon its satisfaction, with the truth and veracity of the complainant’s claim, sent an email dated 27.01.2021 to the complainant asking it to sign and execute certain documents including the sale letter for the salvage of the subject vehicle and the Indemnity Form etc. The said documents clearly mentioned that complainant’s claim has been accepted for Rs.3,86,500/- out of which Rs.2,82,000/- was being paid through the sale of subject vehicle to one Sh. Satish PB and balance amount of Rs.1,04,500/- was to be remitted directly by OP. The complainant had bonafidely accepted the offer and had submitted the document to OP, however complainant was shocked to receive the email dated 08.03.2021 of the OP with a letter dated 01.03.2021 appended thereto, by which OP has illegally, arbitrarily and whimsically repudiated its claim on the ground of concealment of material facts & misrepresentation about name of driver. Aggrieved by the act of OP, the legal notice dated 03.05.2021 was issued by the complainant to OP for withdrawal of the repudiation letter and to allow claim of the complainant, which remained unanswered. Another legal notice dated 09.06.2021 and several other reminders were also not responded by OP, however, OP vide its email dated 28.09.2021 has reiterated the factum of repudiation of the complainant’s claim. The complainant then has filed the present complaint praying for quashing repudiation letter dated 01.03.2021, to allow the claim of Rs.3,86,500/-, as intimated by the OP along with interest @18% p.a. and damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental agony, inconvenience and harassment& also the litigation cost. Complainant has also submitted that meanwhile since resolution of the dispute regarding the wrongful rejection complainant’s claim was taking much time, it was constrained to purchase a new vehicle and wanted to retain the registration number of subject vehicle for its new vehicle, which request was allowed by the office of the Motor Licensing Officer vide letter dated 26.07.2021 to retain the registration number of the subject vehicle i.e. DL8CC K7777 and a new registration number DL1CA  E4566 was allocated to the subject vehicle. Complainant further submits that repudiation letter was in complete contravention of OP’s acceptance of the claim vide email dated 27.01.2021 and after having accepted the claim of the complainant the OP is clearly estopped from maliciously adopting a volte face and repudiating the claim as the same was repudiated on the basis of wholly erroneous presumption without considering the information, explanation/clarification submitted by the director of the complainant and Sh. Rajesh Kumar the driver. Complainant further submits that OP is taking advantage of inadvertent mistake and slip of tongue of the driver who, during telephonic inquiry, had erroneously mentioned the name of driver as Sh. Munish, which is his son’s name, as that time he was engaged in a family conversation. This is further submitted that OP deliberately & mala-fidely rejected the genuine claim of the complainant, despite its liability towards claim amount of the complainant on the frivolous, flimsy, erroneous & baseless grounds, which act of OP amounts to deficiency of service on its part and its indulgence into unfair trade practice because of which the complainant has suffered irreparable harm and injury and has been through financial burden for which OP is liable to compensate the complainant and damages as well as litigation cost along with the insurance claim.
3. Upon notice OP has appeared and filed its reply which was beyond limitation and his application for condonation of delay was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2023. Another application filed by the OP for reviewing the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2023.
4. Complainant has filed its evidence and in support of its case has filed registration certificate of the subject vehicle, insurance policy, photographs depicting the damages caused to the subject vehicle, copies of the statement of the directors of the complainant and driver Sh. Rajesh Kumar dated 25.01.2021, email dated 27.01.2021, & 08.03.2021 alongwith  repudiation letter dated 01.03.2021, copy of the legal notice dated 09.06.2021, copy of the reminder emails, copies of email from OP, email dated 28.09.2021 sent by the OP to complainant’s Counsel, letter dated 26.07.2021 issued by office of the Motor Licensing Officer.
5. This Commission has heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the documents available on record. Since the written statement filed by the OP is not to be read for the purpose of its defense, therefore, all the allegations put-forward by the complainant are deemed to be accepted by the OP. By the documents on record, the insurance policy & accident of the subject vehicle are established. The repudiation letter dated 01.03.2021 filed by the complainant mentions that driver details are mis-represented in intimation and claim form & amounts hiding material facts. In intimation letter the name of driver mentioned as Sh. Munish & on claim form it was mentioned as Mr. Rajesh Kumar. The Commission has gone through the statements given by the driver of the complainant & its driver to the surveyor & considered the possibility of mismatching of the name of the driver, which is quite possible as it is specifically mentioned that the driver name was wrongly mentioned as Mr. Munish by the driver Mr. Rajesh Kumar under some confusion as he was talking on telephone and simultaneously was engaged in family conversation and Mr. Munish is the name of his son. Since the telephonic call was made to driver Sh. Rajesh Kumar & chances of mistake cannot be ruled out, therefore, this Commission accepts the version of the driver Mr. Rajesh Kumar and justification given by Sh. Rajesh Kumar appears to be genuine.
6. Reaching to this conclusion, now the next issue for consideration is whether complainant is entitle for insurance claim, if yes then what should be the claim amount? The mail dated 27.01.2021 from the surveyor to the complainant under the subject “paper and consent required for settlement of vehicle no. DL-8CC K7777 insured name M/s Singla Realters Ltd. Claim No. MOT10616650” shows that certain documents were required to finalise the claim alongwith salvage format. The said email dated 27.01.2021 has the attachment of indemnity cash loss, new format for salvage valuation, request letter, the sale letter and KYC template. The complainant has filed the format letter dated 27.01.2021on 100 rupees stamp paper detailing all facts as per requirement of OP, whereby the complainant has confirmed the settlement on the payment of Rs.1,04,500/- and agreed to sale the salvage himself and to execute all requisite documents that were necessary for transfer of the ownership of the subject vehicle. The complainant has also requested to cancel the policy issued for the subject vehicle bearing no. DL 8CC K7777 from the date of settlement of the claim in issue. The complainant has not placed on record any acceptance of the above stated format by the OP. Therefore, this cannot be presumed that the claim has been accepted & approved by OP. However, from the email dated 27.01.2021 of OP, this is established that such document was sent by OP to be filled by complainant and to sent back to OP. The accident occurred during the period of insurance policy, therefore complainant is entitled for the insurance claim of Rs.3,86,500/- as approved by the surveyor minus accepted salvage value  of Rs.2,82,000/- equal to Rs.1,04,500/-. Further, the proposal of sale of salvage in Rs.2,82,000/- as per requirement of OP cannot be fulfilled now due to lapse of time therefore, the disposal of the salvage would be the responsibility of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has changed the vehicle number of the insured vehicle too, because of which it cannot be transferred to OP with same number, which was in the policy. Therefore complainant is directed to sale the salvage by himself.
7. Though the written statement filed by the OP is not to be read for the purpose of its defense, however, as per settled principle of law, the documents admitted & signed by the complainant can be seen into. OP has not denied the claim amount of Rs.3,86,500/- as well as the value of the salvage of Rs.2,82,000/-. The offer of the surveyor vide email dated 27.01.2021 has got attached the sale letter & surveyor report 27.02.2021 also suggest the same. Once the OP has asked the complainant to furnish the consent in the given format, it cannot be allowed to withdraw the same citing the reason of concealment of material fact w.r.t. name of the driver at a later stage on 01.03.2021 after taking statement of the driver & director of the complainant on 25.01.2021 and giving offer of settlement of insurance claim, which must have been issued by OP only after its complete satisfaction. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the opinion that repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP is on arbitrary ground that amounts to deficiency of service on its part & directs OP to pay the insurance claim of Rs.1,04,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @10%p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 01.03.2021 and a compensation of Rs.20,000/-(including the litigation cost) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which entire amount i.e. Rs.1,04,500/-+20,000/- =Rs.1,24,500/- shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation 01.03.2021 till its final realization by the complainant.
3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to both the Parties free of cost as per rules and thereafter, the File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 28.02.2024.