Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 390.
Instituted on : 22.10.2014.
Decided on : 12.05.2016.
Sumit Kumar s/o Sh. Sarwan Kumar R/o H.No.99/17/1 P-49, Sonepat Road Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Magma HDI, Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at Megma House 24, Park Street Kolkata-700016 through its Gen. Manager.
- Megma HDI Gen. Finance Co. Ltd. Rohtak Office at First Floor Narayan Complex through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jitender Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite parties.
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 the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Car Alto bearing no.HR-12M-8985 and the above said vehicle was fully insured with the opposite parties through policy no.P0014100016/4101/252418. It is averred that on 29.01.2014 the alleged vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. It is averred that complainant informed the opposite parties immediately about the accident and a spot survey was conducted and the complainant was informed about the claim and was informed that the vehicle should be parked at workshop. It is averred that upon the direction of the opposite parties complainant parked his vehicle at Shakti Motors, New Jagmohan Motors, Rohtak and the total estimate of Rs.179165/- as told by the owner of Shakti Motors was submitted to the surveyor. It is averred that the complainant completed all the required formalities and filed the claim with the opposite parties. But the opposite parties vide their letter dated 04.08.2014 had repudiated the claim on the ground that there are so many discrepancies between P.I. Photos and current damaged vehicle. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to reconsider the genuine claim of the complainant but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties of repudiating the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and against the natural justice. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.190000/- as insured money alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the investigator and surveyor had submitted that the car which was provided at the time of Pre-risk inspection was not the car which has been shown at the time of survey of vehicle. So the complainant played fraud and manipulation with the opposite party company to get the insurance of vehicle in order to grab the false claim of the vehicle. It is averred that complainant has informed the opposite parties after 3 days of the accident and has not intimated to the police on account of accident. It is averred that surveyor has submitted the letter dated 05.07.2014 to complainant for clarifying the discrepancies but complainant did not take any heed of the said letter and as such the opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 04.08.2014.. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
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.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R17 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 of vehicle, complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties but the same was repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.C3 on the ground that as per investigator and Final surveyor, there are so many discrepancies between PI Photos and current damaged vehicle.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has only been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that there are so many discrepancies between PI Photos and current damaged vehicle. In this regard it is observed that the particulars of the car mentioned in the Insurance Cover Ex.R14 e.g. Registration No., Engine No. and Chassis no. and year of manufacture are the same as mentioned in the Pre-inspection report Ex.R1 and report of Investigator Ex.R6 as well as Survey report Ex.R9. The discrepancies if any are in the physical features of the car but the same are merely photocopies of photos of the car and are not proved from any cogent evidence. Hence it is not proved on file that the damaged car was not the same which was shown at the time of pre-inspection of the vehicle. The repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitle for the claim as per report of surveyor. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside,” Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2010)CPJ 272 (NC) titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Kumar, has held that: “Surveyor’s report has considerable evidential value, cannot be ignored, unless discredited by producing contrary evidence- Settlement of claim on repair basis directed as per surveyor’s report”. Hon’ble National Commission in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 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 are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the cases it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R9 amounting to Rs.84500/-.
8. In view of facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite parties shall pay the amount of Rs.84500/-(Rupees eighty four thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.10.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of dsecision. 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:
12.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
