Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 517.
Instituted on : 09.11.2015.
Decided on : 17.07.2017.
Amit son of Raj Singh resident of village Sunarian tehsil and Distt. Rohtak, through General Power of Attorney holder, Sonu son of Mahender Singh resident of village Sunarian Kalan tehsil and Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, office at Iffco Sadan, C1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
- Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. SCO-1, 1st floor Hooda Market Sec-14, Delhi Bye Pass, Rohtak through its working agents.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VEDPAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Khatri, Counsel for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Behl, Counsel for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle Maruti Dezire car bearing No.HR-11D-1717 and got insured the aforesaid vehicle with the opposite party company vide policy cover note no.91758911 for the period from 25.03.2015 to 24.03.2016. It is averred that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 17.04.2015 and suffered damaged badly. It is averred that complainant intimated the opposite party within time and opposite party appointed the surveyor who duly got inspected the damaged vehicle and on his asking the complainant got repaired the said vehicle and submitted his claim and also submitted the bills of Rs.134657/- and also incurred expenses on Towing and parking expenses and submitted his claim for Rs.160000/- . It is averred that the claim of the complaisant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 30.07.2015 on the ground that “As per surveyor report vehicle produced at the time of pre-inspection was different from the vehicle for which present claim has been lodged and also damages were old and that the claim is not tenable and treated the claim as No claim. It is averred that the act of opposite parties of repudiating the genuine claim is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.160000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.12.2015 of this Forum. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that vehicle produced at the time of pre-inspection was different from the vehicle for which the present claim has been lodged and also damages were old hence there is misrepresentation of facts and violation of policy terms and conditions. It is averred that surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.70000/- subject to conditions of policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW2 & Ex.CW3 and Annexure CW4 to Annexure CW8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. After the accident complainant filed the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R1 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.70000/- but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R2 has repudiated the claim on the ground that “As per surveyor report vehicle produced at the time of pre-inspection was different from the vehicle for which present claim has been lodged and also damages were old, hence there is a misrepresentation of facts and violation of policy terms & conditions”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No.1 on the ground that the accidental vehicle not match with pre-inspection repor”. In this regard it is observed that pre-inspection report is not placed on record by the opposite party. Moreover it is not the case of opposite party that there was any difference in the engine number, chassis number and registration number of the accidental vehicle. As such it is not proved on file that vehicle produced at the time of pre-inspection was different from the vehicle for which present claim has been lodged. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hyper technical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount”. Regarding the quantum dispute, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per surveyor report Ex.R1 of Rs.70000/- from the opposite party.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party No.1 shall pay the amount of Rs.70000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.11.2015 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
