Punjab

Sangrur

CC/212/2017

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Ratol

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    212

                                                Instituted on:      15.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       10.08.2017

 

Jaswant Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of village Matoi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2^nd Floor above Hotel Hot Chop, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP                      :       Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jaswant Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant being the owner of the Bolero Pick up car bearing registration number PB-13-AL-1909 got insured from the OP vide policy number 36724201 for the period from 14.08.2015 to 13.08.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.15,101/-.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question was purchased after raising the loan.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 18.7.2016 the vehicle in question when it was going from village Matoi to Malerkotla and was being driven by Mohinder Singh son of Mukand Singh then a straw cow came in front of the vehicle suddenly, as such, the vehicle in question struck with the tree.  The intimation of the accident was given to the Op and the Op immediately appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss and as such on the instructions of the surveyor, the vehicle was brought to M/s. Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Patiala for repairs, who charged Rs.20,000/- for estimate and repair etc and thereafter they prepared the estimate for Rs.3,15,227/-.  Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP, but to the utter surprise, the OP repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.12.2016, which is said to be wrong and unfair on the part of the OP.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,15,227/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

2.             In the written reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured under the policy w.e.f. 14.8.2015 to 13.8.2016 as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further stated that after receipt of the intimation from the complainant regarding the accident of his Bollero pick up, the Op appointed Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss of the vehicle.  It is stated further that as per the report of the surveyor, the complainant took insurance policy A-2 class, where the vehicle was carrying goods not belonging to insured so the claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Limitation to use: Goods vehicle Class-A: use only in carriage of goods within meaning of Motor Vehicle Act.  It is stated further that the claim has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 29.12.2016.   However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.  

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his Bolero Pick Up in question from the OP vide policy number 36724201 for the period from 14.08.2015 to 13.08.2016 on comprehensive basis, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 18.7.2016 and damaged badly and suffered huge loss as the vehicle in question struck with the tree while the driver of the vehicle was saving the stray cow, which suddenly came ahead of the vehicle, as it is evident from the copy of DDR, Ex.C-11. The grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents, the OP has failed to settle the claim even after receipt of the survey report.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.4,50,000/-.  The complainant has produced on record Ex.C-7, the copy of estimate whereby the loss was stated to be 3,15,228/-, which amount the complainant has claimed being the loss of the vehicle.   On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the vehicle in question suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,31,591/- only as is evident from the copy of email on record Ex.OP-6.  The exact wording on Ex.OP-6 is “Due to some error we are still not able to download the survey report. However, the assessed loss by surveyor is Rs.1,31,591/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy.” Its meaning is that the OP failed to download the survey report meaning thereby the survey report was not in possession of the OP nor the Op has produced on record the copy of survey report of Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor.  It is worth mentioning here that a bare perusal of the repudiation letter dated 29.12.2016 Ex.C-3 reveals that the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant after perusal of the report of surveyor and other documents.  Another objection of the OP is also not tenable as there is no mention in the policy about the hire purchase reward and further the OP has not produced any conclusive evidence on record to show that the vehicle was being used for hire reward at the time of accident on 18.07.2016. It is very strange that the OP on one hand is saying that the survey report could not be downloaded and on the other side, it is mentioned in the repudiation letter dated 29.12.2016 Ex.C-3 that the claim was repudiated after perusal of the report of surveyor and other documents.  Hence, it is clear that the OP is misleading this Forum by withholding the report of surveyor and further has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Future General India Insurance Company Limited versus Intkam and others 2017(2) CLT 410 (Rajasthan State Commission), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that it is the duty of the company to submit the survey report.  If the insurance company has not placed on record the survey report AND what amount was assessed by surveyor is not on record.  Then it was held that it was the duty of the company to submit the survey report and the amount for repairs be awarded on the basis of the affidavit of the complainant.  The same is the position in the present case, as the OP has clearly withheld the survey report in the present case. It is further worth mentioning here that there is no requirement of route permit of the vehicle in the present case, as is evident from the copy of letter issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, Ex.C-6. We have also perused the copy of claim sheet Ex.OP-4, whereby the OP has stated that the net liability of the Op regarding the claim is only Rs.131591/-, but we failed to understand, how this figure of Rs.131591/- appeared, when the OP was unable to download the survey report regarding the claim of the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to settle the claim  as per the estimate/service quotation issued by the approved dealer of the vehicle after deducting 15% of the total amount on account of depreciation and salvage etc.

 

 6.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,67,943/- (Rs.3,15,227/- minus Rs.47,284/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.5.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OP within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.  

                Pronounced.

                August 10, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                         

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member