ORDER

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OP. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. HR-10AC-4894 insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.1035743202 w.e.f. 09.08.2020 to 08.08.2021 covering all types of accident, included add on cover opted for consumable cover, depreciation cover, return to invoice and road side assistance and in this regard complainant paid the extra premium to OP Ins. Company. On 02.08.2021, the vehicle in question met with an accident during collusion with the bus . The vehicle in question got completely damaged. The intimation of the accident was given to OP Ins. Company. The OP ins. Company appoint the surveyor who assess the loss in question. It is alleged by the complainant that after this continuous follow up the OP Ins. Company partly allowed the claim in question and repudiated the balance claim arbitrarily. Non refund of the entire claim amount by the OP despite receiving the extra premium for Return to Invoice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP hence, this complaint.

Complaint has been contested by OP. OP filed its written statement wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the complainant has given wrong details of the driver driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident whereas the actual driver is Mr. Aryan Aggarwal. The wilful misrepresentation of the facts by the complainant leads to the non payment of its claim. However, still considering the insured centric approach and as per the wish of the complainant, its claim was partly allowed by the OP Ins. Company. It is further stated that the claim has been rightly settled by the OP Ins. Company under the four squares of policy terms and conditions. Hence, the present complaint be dismissed having devoid of merit.

Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar and have perused the record.

Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the policy in question, coverage of Return to Invoice for which OP company charged extra premium. It is stated by the counsel for OP that the claim of the complainant is not admissible one and still its claim is allowed partly only by considering the repeated request, follow up by complainant and as a goodwill gesture.

Admittedly, insurance is a contract and both the parties are bound by the terms therein. We failed to understand on what basis the OP Ins. Company partly allowed the claim of the complainant. The OP failed to justify the deductions made by it in the claim of the complainant that too when the complainant purchased the policy in question with the additional coverage of Return to Invoice by paying the extra premium. In view of the above, the part settlement of claim by OP is unjustified for which we hold OP ins. Company guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:

1. Refund to the complainant returned to invoice value after deducting the amount paid.

2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation cost.

OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on _____________.

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT