Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/457/2020

Anita Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty General Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajmer Lal Pundeer

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/457/2020
Date of Institution	:	15/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Anita Singla wife of Sh. Ram Gopal Singla, resident of 1090, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh 160030.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Liberty General Insurance Limited, 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400013 – through its General Manager.
2. Liberty General Insurance Limited, Policy issuing office, 2^nd Floor, SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (UT) through its Branch Manager. 

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajmer Lal Pundeer, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vishal Sharma, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Anita Singla, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of a Maruti Baleno Car bearing registration No.CH01-BW 7397 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) which was got insured by her from OP-2 vide certificate of insurance cum policy schedule (Annexure C-2) valid w.e.f. 29.3.2020 to 28.3.2021, by paying premium of ₹11,891/-.  On the evening of 14.8.2020 at about 7:00 pm when the subject car was being driven by Sh.Shivam Singla, son of the complainant, who was possessing a valid driving licence, it met with an accident at Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Punjab) with a tempo coming from the opposite side which knocked down the right side of the car, as a result of which the left side of the car dashed against the roadside berms and in this manner the subject car was damaged from both sides.  The photographs of the spot were clicked.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the authorized dealer of the subject car i.e. Apex Motors, Industrial Area, Chandigarh on 16.8.2020 for necessary repairs and intimated the OPs about the accident by sending estimate of ₹35,000/-.  On this, OPs had deputed Sh. Karikeyan Dixit, surveyor who inspected the subject car and collected the relevant papers from the complainant, including the claim form (Annexure C-6). At that time, the conduct of the surveyor was very harsh, who told the complainant that the accident does not coincide with the facts as stated in the claim form.  On this, the complainant sent one email to the office of the OPs informing about the loss as well as the conduct of the surveyor.  On completion of the repair of the subject damaged car, bill to the tune of ₹24,780/- was raised by the repairer vide tax invoice dated 29.8.2020 (Annexure C-8), which was paid by the complainant from her own pocket. However, later on, OPs repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.8.2020 (Annexure C-13) on the ground that the damage found to the subject car by the surveyor does not coincide with the cause and nature of loss as mentioned in the claim form by the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 7.9.2020 (Annexure C-14) to the OPs, but, with no result. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, jurisdiction, cause of action and limitation.  It is also alleged that the complainant has made unreasonable and mischievous demands by filing the present consumer complaint. However, it is admitted that the subject car was got insured by the complainant from the answering OPs, but, alleged that the complainant has lodged a false claim as the same does not coincide with the actual inspection conducted by the surveyor with the facts stated by the complainant in the claim form.  It is further alleged that no FIR or DDR was lodged by the complainant after the accident.  It is further alleged that even the surveyor during inspection of the subject car had not found any dent or scratches on its doors.  It is further alleged that the claim was rightly repudiated by the OPs.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, which was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 29.3.2020 to 28.3.2021, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if on the relevant date, time and place, the subject car, having been driven by son of the complainant namely Sh. Shivam Singla, had met with an accident with a tempo, which resulted in causing damage to the subject car and the subject car was got repaired by the complainant from the authorized repairer and the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant had not lodged a genuine claim and on finding the same doubtful by the OPs, the claim  was rightly repudiated and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. It is not disputed by the OPs that the subject car was not being driven by aforesaid Sh. Shivam Singla on the relevant date, time and place and at that time he was possessing a valid driving licence.  The claim of the complainant is resisted by the OPs on the simple ground that whatever facts have been stated by the complainant in the claim form do not coincide with the facts verified by the surveyor of the company on the spot as he had not found any scratches or dents on both the side doors of the subject car and the OPs have heavily relied upon the report of the surveyor (Annexure R-4).  However, perusal of the said report clearly indicates that even during inspection by the surveyor, he had referred about damage to the bumper, fender and repair of front door, rear door, rear bumper and side mirror, which falsifies the defence of the OPs that the facts narrated by the complainant in the claim form do not coincide with the surveyor report as one thing is common in the claim form as well as in the report that the subject car was damaged in the accident.  Even it is not the defence of the OPs that when the surveyor of the company inspected the subject car, no damage/loss was found to the same. 
   3. Moreover, the complainant has also proved the photographs of the subject car showing that the doors and bumper etc. of the same were damaged in the said accident. Even the photographs further make it clear that in the said accident, both the sides of the subject car have been damaged.  Not only this, except the report of their surveyor, OPs have not led any other evidence in order to prove that the subject car did not meet with an accident on the relevant date, time and place, rather it appears that the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated by the OPs on the basis of mere presumptions and by ignoring the factual position/documents submitted by the complainant with the OPs and the said act of the OPs certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
   4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, complainant had submitted the invoice bill (Annexure C-8) showing that she had paid an amount of ₹24,780/- to the repairer whereas the surveyor of the OPs had assessed the net liability of ₹25,432/-.  However, when it is the case of the complainant herself that she had spent an amount of ₹24,780/- only, as is also evident from Annexure C-8, the net liability of the OPs comes to ₹24,780/- - ₹ 1,000 (Less compulsory excess) = ₹23,780/- and the OPs are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹23,780/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 29.8.2020 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/04/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member