Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/50

Rupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. A.P.S.Bawa, Adv.

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                       Consumer Complaint No. : 50 of 08.07.2021

                        Date of decision                    :    15.09.2022

 

 

Rupinder Singh aged about 25 years, son of Avtar Singh, resident of Village Makrauna Kalan, Tehsil Sri Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

                                                        ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, SCO-C-861-862, Main Road, Opposite Bhatha Sahib Chowk, Rupnagar, Punjab, Through its Branch Manager 

   ...Opposite Party

                        Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

 

                        SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. A.P.S Bawa, Adv. For complainant

Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.P

 

ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant had purchased the vehicle i.e. Mahindra XUV500 Model W6 bearing registration No.PB-12-Z-5164. After its purchase, the same was insured by the complainant with the insurance company of the OP. Now the vehicle in question was latestly insured by the OP vide policy No.MC978502 and the said policy is valid from 20.02.2020 to 19.02.2021. On 31.07.2020, the complainant along with his brother Gurinder Singh, who is driving the vehicle on the same day came from Mohali late night via Chunni to Maorinda Road, when the complainant along with Gurinder SAingh son of Jagnahar Singh reached near village Bhateri, tahen all of sudden one stray animal came in front of their *vehicle and to save them the vehicle of the complainant, which was driven by Gurinder Singh was become out of control then the said vehicle was struck in the tree. In the said accident, the complainant and his cousin brother also received some internal grievous injury. The said accident iwas occu+arred at about 11.30 PM. In that very accident, the vehiclesa of the complainant was totally damaged. Thereafter, the complainant informed regarding the accident to the insurance company. Thereafter, the insurance company deputed the surveyor of Raj Motor to assess the damage of the vehicle of the complainant. After the inspection by the Surveyor, made the estimate of Rs.6,63,673/- of the vehicle. The vehicle of the complainant was insured by the OP on 20.02.2020 after seeing the condition of the vehicle and at the time of insurance of that very vehicle, the complainant produced the said vehicle before the concerned official of the OP. The complainant informed regarding the accident of his vehicle to the insurance company immediately. Now the vehicle of the complainant is parked with Raj Motors and hte parking charges also bear by the complainant. The complainant also filed the claims for accidental vehicle with the Ops and after the appointment of the surveyor the loss of the accidental vehicle was also assessed by the surveyor which was appointed by the Raj Motors. Thereafter, the complainant so many times approached the OP to clear the accidental claim of his vehicle but the OP linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the OP:-

1. To clear the claim No.37F47700, SBU-D3, of vehicle bearing No.PB-12-Z-5164, which was insured by the OP vide policy No.MC978502.
2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be granted, in the interest of justice.

2.      In reply, the OP has filed written reply stating therein that the present complaint is full of false particulars against the law and facts. The factual background in respect of the present matter are that the complainant had purchased the policy of the vehicle bearing No.PB-12-Z-5164 w.e.f. 20.02.2020 to 19.02.2021 after getting the vehicle pre inspected. Insurance policy with condition annexed as annexure R1, pre inspection report Ex.R2. The insurance cover granted to the complainant was strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and on the basis of utmost good faith which is one of the important principle of any insurance contract. The complainant has intimated a claim on 03.08.2020 to the insurance company for alleged loss dated 31.07.2020. Upon receipt of intimation, the competent authority of the insurance company has deputed IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor to conduct the survey and the on the basis of discrepancies, surveyor filed his recommendation. While processing the claim file observed by the OP that there is a gross misrepresentation and concealment of facts regarding damage to the vehicle and he has contravened the utmost good faith in lodging the claim. So, the claim of the complainant was not found tenable and the same was closed by the OP as No Claim vide letter dated 23.3.2021. Rest of allegations made by the complainant against the OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. 

3.      The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and closed the evidence.

4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

5.      The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the vehicle was damaged on 31-7-2020 on account of accident at about 11:30 p.m. After the accident, the opposite party was also informed along with the accident and all the necessary documents were provided to the Insurance Company, but the insurance company has wrongly declined to pay the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has misrepresented the facts to the company and the damages to the vehicle were not fresh one, but old one as rust is accumulated over the damaged parts of the vehicle. The vehicle in damaged condition is completed different from the vehicle shown at the time of pre-inspection and as such the claim of the complainant is not payable and was repudiated on 23-3-2021. The vehicle was surveyed by IRDA approved Surveyor & Loss Assessor Er. Saravjit Singh, whose report is placed on record as Ex.OP-4 vide which he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,92,483/-. Lastly prayed to allow the present complaint.

6.      The learned counsel for the OP argued that after receiving the information, the company deputed surveyor immediately and the said surveyor submit his report with so many discrepancies in the vehicle in question and the OP has rightly repudiate the claim of the complainant as the OP has observed that there is gross misrepresentation and concealment of facts regarding damage to the vehicle in question. Lastly prayed to dismiss the present complaint.

7.      The controversy between the parties  can be summed up as:-

"Whether the complainant has shown different vehicle at the time of pre-inspection instead of damaged vehicle."

As per the evidence produced by the Insurance Company in the shape of report of autoinspekt dated 20-2-2020 duly produced on record as Ex.OP2, the particulars of engine number, chassis number and vehicle number duly match with that of the damages vehicle. The engine number and chassis number are also shown in the photographs clicked before issuance of insurance policy. As the particulars of the vehicle shown in Ex.OP2 clearly match the damaged vehicle, so the defence of insurance company with regard to showing different vehicle at the time of pre-inspection has got no merit. Further, the points mentioned in the repudiation letter pertain to the temporary  improvements, which can be made by any person during the time as both the  photographs are clicked after a considerable gap of about 5 months and  the same are decided as under:-

1. With regard to back bumper guard, the same can be got affixed or removed by any owner on the same vehicle.
2. The sticker, if any, affixed on the vehicle can always be changed as per the wish of the owner.
3. Similarly chrome fitting can also be changed by the owner.
4. Lord photo can always be affixed/removed by the owner.
5. Holy thread can also be tied or removed at any point of time.
6. The alloys can also be changed at any point of time.
7. Foot rest could also be attached or removed at any point of time.

Thus, at no point, the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company vide letter Ex.OP-8 is justified and as such the same is liable to be set aside. So, the complainant is entitled for the reimbursement of the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has also relied upon the surveyor report in the complaint and the surveyor has assessed the claim to the tune of Rs. 2,92,483/-. Even otherwise, the report of surveyor is a valuable piece of evidence and as per the law laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. and Ors. (18.08.2021 - SC):-

"Surveyor's report cannot be considered as a sacrosanct document and that if there is any contrary evidence including investigation report, opportunity should be available to produce it as rebuttal material. The surveyors report is the basic document which has statutory recognition and can be made the basis if it inspires the confidence of the adjudicating forum and if such forum does not find the need to place reliance on any other material, in the facts and circumstance arising in the case. "

    8.    Thus, the present loss is assessed as per final survey report as no substantial reasons have been given by the complainant for its non-reliance. Thus, the complainant is held entitled to interest @ 7.5% P.A from the date of repudiation of letter i.e. 23-3-2021.

9.        In view of my above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the OP :-

1. To pay a claim of Rs. 2,92,483/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% P.A from the date of repudiation i.e. 23-3-2021.
2.  To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as  compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.  

ANNOUNCED                                                                                       (RANJIT SINGH)

          Dated.15.09.2022                                                 PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               

                                                                  (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                      MEMBER