Haryana

Karnal

CC/123/2018

Balwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Sharma

18 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                         New complaint no.123 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 23.05.2018

                                                         Old complaint No.45 of 2014

                                                         Old date of instt. 17.02.2014

                                                         Date of decision:18.7.2018

 

Balwan Singh son of Shri Dharam Singh resident of village Nangal Kheri, District Panipat.

                                                                                …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., Magma House 24 Park Street, Kolkata-700016 through its Managing Director.

2. Branch Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., Ground 1^st, IInd, 3^rd floor SCO no.13, Sector-3, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Karnal-132001 (Haryana)

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.              

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

                Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present  Shri Virender Kumar Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Mohit Tayal Advocate for opposite parties.

                

ORDER:                    

 

                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-67/9915 (Tata) from OPs, vide cover note no.P-0013100003/4103/135497, valid from 29.01.2013 to 28.01.2014. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9.4.2013 in the area of Deswal Chowk, Jatal Road, Panipat and case has been registered with the Police Station Model Town, Panipat on 10.4.2013. The complainant informed the OPs regarding the said accident. OPs appointed a surveyor namely Bhuvnesh Babbar to inspect the accidental vehicle. Thereafter, the said vehicle was brought to the workshop at Panipat-Rohan Motors and other workshops with the help of Crane and then the said vehicle was got repaired and spent Rs.6,73,352/-. The complainant applied for the insurance claim to the OP no.2 but OP no.2 has not passed any claim despite repeated requests. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 27.12.2013 to the OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action and maintainability. On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle was met with an accident on 9.4.2013 in the area of Deswal Chowk, Jatal Road, Panipat and in this regard a case has been registered with Police Station Model Town Panipat on 10.04.2013, and it is incorrect to say that complainant intimated the OPs about the accident. The official of the company visited the office of Mico Diesel Service: Gohana Road, Opp. Power House, Panipat and enquired about the bill no.1488 dated 9.8.2013, but there is no record of said bill with the Mico Diesel Service and as such the complainant has prepared the forged bill amounting to Rs.78800/- on the letter pad of Mico Diesel Service and in this regard, the concerned officer of Mico Diesel Service issued a letter in writing in this regard. Due to this reasons OPs issued letters dated 29.11.2013, 08.12.2013 and 23.12.2013 about the forged bill prepared by the complainant, but he did not reply the same and did not come to the office of OP. It is pertinent ot mention here that the Mico Diesel Service has clearly written in his letter head pad dated 22.10.2013 that the bill no.1488 dated 7.10.2013 has not issued by the Service Centre. It is further submitted that after calling many times, the complainant did not come to the office of the OPs. The complainant wants to extort huge amount from OPs on the basis of forged bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW7/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 5.3.2015.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Nimisha Shahani Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 and closed the evidence on 2.12.2015.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the complainant was the owner of vehicle no.HR-67/9915 insured with OPs valid from 29.1.2013 to 28.1.2014. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9.4.2013 in the area of Panipat for which FIR was got registered in Police Station Model Town, Panipat.

7.             According to the complainant, he gave the intimation of accident to OP no.2 and the spot inspection was done by the authorized investigator/surveyor of the company namely Bhuvnesh Babbar. Thereafter, the vehicle was brought to the workshop at Panipat-Rehan Motors and other workshops with the help of crane and got repaired the same and the cost of repair was Rs.6,73,352/-. The complainant applied the claim with the OPs but the same was repudiated wrongly by the OPs.

8.             On the other hand, the OPs admitted the fact of accident and FIR. The OPs stated that when their official visited the office of Mico Diesel Service, Gohana Road, opposite power house, Panipat and enquired about the bill no.1488 dated 9.8.2013 amounting to Rs.78800/-,  no record was found there about the said bill. The concerned official of Mico Diesel Service issued a letter in writing in this regard. Due to this reasons, the OPs have issued letters dated 29.11.2013, 8.12.2013 and 23.12.2013 to the complainant about the forged bill, but the complainant has neither replied the said letters nor come present in the office of OPs. Due to this reasons, there was apprehension in the mind of OPs that the bills presented by the complainant could be forged and prepared after in collusion with the concerned person/officials. So, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.

9.             The claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 23.12.2013 Ex.C3 from which it is clear that the claim was repudiated on the ground of fake bill. To prove the genuineness of the bills, the complainant produced the affidavits on the file. Ex.CW2/A is the affidavit of proprietor of Kadian Crane Service who stated about shifting of accidental vehicle and charged Rs.2500/-. Similarly, Ex.CW2/A is the affidavit regarding repair bill of Rs.3,50,552/- of the proprietor of H.S.Motors (Tata Motor Ltd. authorized service centre.) The complainant produced other affidavits i.e. Ex.CW4/A to Ex.CW7/A regarding the repair of the vehicle in question by them. The complainant also produced the copies of the bills Ex.C-15 to Ex.C20. On the other hand, the OPs produce Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3. Out of these, Ex.O-1 is the affidavit, Ex.O-2 is the alleged writing by the Mico Diesel Service regarding the fact that bill no.1488 dated 7.10.2013 was not issued by it. The document i.e. Ex.O-2 is allegedly issued by Sri Niwas. To rebut the document Ex.O2, the complainant has produced the affidavit of said Sri Niwas, proprietor of said Mico Diesel Service with regard to the fact that he had received Rs.78,880/- on 7.20.2013 from the complainant. On the other hand,  the OPs have not produced any cogent evidence to prove letter Ex.O-2. The OPs further produced the copy of letter dated 30.11.2013 Ex.O-3 vide which comments of the complainant were sought regarding forged bill dated 7.10.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs have not mentioned this letter in their reply and the letters mentioned by the OPs in their reply i.e. letters dated 29.11.2013 and 8.12.2013 are not produced in the evidence by the OPs, the reasons for non-production are best known to the OPs. It is further pertinent to mention here that the complainant has alleged about the inspection of the accidental vehicle by the investigator/surveyor from the company namely ‘Bhuvnesh Babbar’ but the OPs have neither denied this fact nor produced the report of the surveyor on the file. It is also pertinent to mention here that the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the apprehension in mind regarding genuineness of the bill without collecting any cogent evidence and without getting verified the entire bill through their surveyor.  The OPs have not produced any cogent evidence to prove that the bills in question were forged, whereas the complainant has produced the affidavit of all the relevant persons. Therefore, the OPs have failed to prove that the bills produced by the complainant were forged and got prepared in collusion with the concerned persons. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed a mistake in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.6,73,352/- but subject to depreciation, if any as the vehicle in question is of 2010. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 18.07.2018

                                                                       

                                                                    President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member