DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 290
Instituted on: 16.06.2017
Decided on: 08.09.2017
Tinku Kansal son of Shri Manga Ram Resident of H.No.366, City Road, Sunam, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Shastri Nagar, Near Railway Crossing, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO House, III Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its DM/GM.
3. Globe Automobiles Pvt. Limited (Globe Toyota), Village Bhindran, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/Manager.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.
For OPs No.1&2 : Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.
For OP No.3 : Shri Ramandeep Singh, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Tinku Kansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant being the owner of the Toyata Corolla Altis car bearing registration number PGJ-0011 got insured from the OP number 2 vide policy number 50256743 for Rs.6,50,000/- for the period from 1.2.2017 to 31.1.2018 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.22,091/-. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the car in question met with an accident as a stray dog suddenly came in front of the car, as a result of which the car in question struck and damaged from the both sides i.e. front and back. The intimation of the accident was immediately given to the Op number 2 and the car was brought to OPP number 3, where the surveyor of the Ops visited and took photographs of the accidental vehicle. The OP number 1 and 2 did not pay the claim, as such, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,205/- to OP number 3 on account of repairs of the vehicle vide receipt number 3191 dated 3.3.2017, but the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 27.4.2017 on the ground that the complainant had claimed ‘no claim bonus wrongly as he has earlier claimed the claim, which is said to be illegal and without any basis. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.35,205/- 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 OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the Ops number 1 and 2 under the policy in question w.e.f. 1.2.2017 to 31.1.2018 for Rs.6,50,000/-. It is admitted fact that after receipt of the intimation from the complainant on 18.2.2017 regarding the accident of the vehicle, as such, the Ops appointed Shri Naresh Kumar surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28,428/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. However, it has been denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.35,205/- on the repairs of the vehicle. It is stated further that the complainant had claimed wrongly no claim bonus of 35% of the premium which he was not entitled being he has already lodged the claim with the previous insurer. As such, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.
3. In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3, that the complainant has already got the vehicle repaired from the Op number 3 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.35,205/-. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has also been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit along with annexure Op3/1 to OP3/5 and closed evidence.
5. 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.
6. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his Toyota Corolla Altis car in question from the OP number 2 vide policy number 50256743 for the period from 1.2.2017 to 31.1.2018 on comprehensive basis by paying the requisite premium of Rs.22091/-, 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 18.2.2017 and damaged badly and suffered huge loss as the vehicle in question met with an accident, when a stray dog came in front of the car and the driver applied the brakes as such the vehicle damaged from the front and rear sides. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had earlier lodged the claim with the OPs and has got insured the vehicle by claiming no claim bonus, as such he is not entitled to get any claim. On the other hand, the stand of the complainant is that though he lodged the claim earlier with the OP, but has not got any claim as the same was minor one. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that mere lodging of the claim with the OPs does not entitle the Ops to repudiate the claim of the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have not produced iota of evidence on record to show that how much amount of the claim was paid to the complainant nor there is any documentary evidence on record to prove this fact. Moreover, earlier also the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs number 1 and 2, but despite that the Ops number 1 and 2 have not produced any such document on record. There is nothing produced on record by the Ops that how much claim amount was settled/paid to the complainant. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have miserably failed to establish its case that the complainant had earlier claimed any claim amount and further claimed wrongly no claim bonus.
7. In the present case, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.35,205/- on the ground that he spent an amount of Rs.35205/- and paid to OP number 3 as is evident from the copy of receipt Ex.C-2. But, on the other hand, we have also perused the copy of motor final survey report of Shri Naresh Kumar on record as Ex.OP1&2/2, whereby he has assessed the claim amount of Rs.28,428/-. As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs number 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.28,428/- on account of the loss to the vehicle as assessed by the surveyor Shri Naresh Kumar.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.28,428/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.6.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OPs number 1 and 2 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.
September 8, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
