The titled complainant Sunil Kumar Balotra has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties aggrieved at the impugned Repudiation (ExOP1) of his Car Accident-claim on 18.04.2019 on an alleged arbitrarily assumed ground of negating the Road-side Accident by addressing it as an endeavored act (or better criminal offense) of overrunning his estranged cousin Rajnishwar Balotra under the Insured Car and thus violating the terms of the Policy that in turn had invalidated the related claim.
2. The complainant had purchased the said Car Make Hyundai Model Creta from the OP2 Vendor (Hyundai Authorized) RC No.PB-35-AC-5175 and since then had been getting it comprehensively insured through them from the OP1 insurers. The last policy being valid up to 19.03.2019. Somehow, on 13.09.2018 the Car got badly damaged while being driven by the complainant, in an accident having struck against the road-side pole. However, on account of the said accident one Rajeshwar Balotra got injured and his wife Anamika filed an FIR # 120 (17.09.2018) U/s 308/506 IPC with the police authorities at P.S. Div.No. 2 Pathankot through political links etc. During investigations the IPC sections 308/506 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide/Assault in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person) were dropped and instead GD 32 (04.01.2019) U/s 279/337/338 IPC (Rash Driving/Causing Hurt by act endangering life/Causing Grievous Hurt) were recorded.
3. The complainant intimated (the next day) the OP1 Insurers of the accident who deputed Surveyor to assess the loss/damage and also advised the complainant to get the car repaired at the OP2 workshop and file the repairs-claim. The OP2 repaired the damaged car and raised Bills for Rs.3,99,918/- for which claim was duly lodged with the OP1 insurers.
4. As already stated above, the OP1 insurers had repudiated the claim on arbitrarily assumed flimsy grounds and the OP2 vendor workshop had refused to deliver the repaired car that has been held by them, since then. And, hence the present complaint praying for settlement of the claim of Rs.3,99,918/-, in full, with interest @ 18% PA from the date of accident till realization besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation, in the interest of justice etc. The complainant has filed his duly sworn out Affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) to successfully prosecute his complaint along with the listed documents as: Ex.C1 – Copy of the RC of the accident-ed Car; Ex.C2 – Copy of the Insurance-Policy; Ex.C3 – Copy Driving License Complainant; Ex.C4 – Copy of FIR 120 of 17.09.2018; Ex.C5 – Copy of the GD 032 of 04.01.2019; Ex.C6 – Copy of the S.S.P.'s Report on the FIR; Ex.C7 – Aadhar Copy of the complainant. Ex.C8 – Copy of the Car Purchase Invoice; Ex.C9 – Orders MACT dated 04.05.2022 MACP 35/2019 (CIS76/2019); Rejoinder to Written Reply and Written Arguments.
5. Similarly, the OP1 insurers appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement raising objections, in reciprocation, as well as fresh pleadings as:
6. That the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as there's no deficiency in service on their part as they got the related intimation on 16.01.2019 of the alleged car accident of 13.09.2018 on account of bursting of the car's rear tyre causing it to strike a road-side tree. The appointed Surveyor & Loss Assessor, however, has refuted the same as rear tyres are mounted on dead-axle and cause no effect on the car steering-system however the loss/damage was assessed by him to the tune of Rs.3,61,998/-.
7. Further, the complainant has suppressed the facts as revealed later during the OP1's investigations that one FIR was lodged by the wife Anamika of the victim Rajnishwar Balotra (the estranged cousin) who was run-over under the said car (using it as weapon of attack) and was dragged for a few feet before striking it against the Gate of a nearby House and got it badly damaged. The run-over victim Rajnishwar Balotra stayed hospitalized at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar and he also wrote to the OP1 insurers of the complainant's having run him under the said car. The anticipatory bail as applied by the complainant was also refused by the Sessions Court and the criminal case is till continuing in the court of the JMIC. The MACT (Motors Accident Claims Tribunal) has awarded compensation to Rajnishwar Balotra the run-over victim. The OP1 insurers have admitted repudiation of the impugned claim in terms of the policy that any loss/damage caused/incurred to the insured car during its use in some criminal activity shall not be covered however their liability, if any, shall be restricted by the Surveyor's assessment of loss at Rs.3,61,998/- only. Lastly, the OP1 insurers have filed their Affidavit (Ex.OP1/1A) along with the listed documents, in evidence, seeking dismissal of the complaint as: i) Ex.OP1/1- Copy of the Repudiation; ii) Ex.OP1/2 - Copy of the Repudiation Dispatch Postal Receipt; iii) Ex.OP1/3 - Copy of the claim Form; iv) Ex.OP1/4 - Copy of letter from Rajnishwar Balotra; v) Ex.OP1/5 - Copy of Discharge Summary Rajnishwar Balotra; vi) Ex.OP1/6 - Copy of the FIR; vii) Ex.OP1/7 - Copy of the complainant Bail Application; viii) Ex.OP1/8 - Copy of the Surveyor's Report; ix) Ex.OP1/9–Copies of the Photos of the injured person; x) Ex.OP1/10-Copies by the 3rd Party; xi) Ex.OP1/11-Copy of the Policy and xii) Ex.OP1/12–Policy Terms etc.
8. The OP2 vendor-workshop/repairers upon notice appeared through its counsel who filed the written reply that in terms of its brief precis-version/ synopsis, in nut-shell means/conveys and somewhat reads as:
9. That there's no cause of action ever arisen against them favoring the complainant as they have repaired the damaged car and that's ready for delivery against payment of the repair bills amounting to Rs.3,99,918/- dated 26.02.2019 besides parking charges @ Rs.250/- day from the date of repairs till actual delivery and Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges. The written reply has been duly accompanied by the self attested Affidavit (Ex.OP2/1) supported by documents (Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/9) in evidence seeking dismissal of the complaint.
10. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We further observe that the prime dispute had prompted at the OP2 vendor workshop's refusal to deliver back the repaired-car till they get the payment of the repair-bills may be from the insured or from the insurers and they are justified in their stand however the OP2 have not produced any evidence/contract and/or bill drawn on account of parking charges and thus they are not entitled to parking charges in addition to repair-bills, in the absence of evidence
11. Regarding the issue of loss/damage caused to the insured car during the course of a criminal activity, we observe that the accusation does not have declaration/pronouncement of law in affirmation, on the records of the proceedings. The one otherwise a valid accident-claim cannot be repudiated on the grounds of suspicion/charges/imputations/initiations of criminal accusations of offenses. There's no affidavits of any victim or other aggrieved(s).
12. We further observe that all the OP1's counter pleadings even taken together do not justify/nullify the irrational, intentional and uncalled-for retribution displayed throughout the proceedings continuing there-in-after, in succession. On the other hand, these reflect deficiency in service on the part of the OP1 insurers. We also note that the law of the land allows, in general, availing of the legal remedy in accordance with the procedure established in law for all sorts of developments but finality can be accorded by the judicial courts of competent jurisdiction so its has been premature to address the complainant as a criminal and the accident as part of a criminal activity. We also observe that the opposite parties have pleaded or even have attempted to produce some cogent evidence/senior court rulings barring trial of issues branching-out, simultaneously or in succession, from the same stem-root of 'delinquency, deficiency in service and an open/proved employ of unfair trade practices etc. And, we also find the opposite party insurers to have caused stark violation as a consequence to their planned acts and omissions and that have placed them on the adverse side of law liable to suffer an adverse award.
13. Thus, we partly allow the present complaint on the strength of our considered opinion to ORDER the OP insurers to pay the impugned claim at the Surveyor Assessed Loss Amount of Rs.3,61,998/- favoring the complainant with interest @ 6% PA from the date of the complaint to till actual payment, in full, besides to Pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for having caused him harassment, mental agony and financial-loss besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 3% PA w e from the date of orders till actually paid.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (R.S.Sukhija)
OCT. 26, 2022. Member.
YP.
