Haryana

Sonipat

CC/262/2015

Shri Amit Kumar S/o Hawa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager National Insurance Co. LTd. - Opp.Party(s)

Miss Suman

03 May 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.262 of 2015

                                Date of Instt. 04.08.2015 

                                Date of order: 03.05.2016

 

 

Amit Kumar son of Hawa Singh, resident of 618 New Tara Nagar, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mandliye Karyalya II Narain Complex, 2^nd Floor Civil road, Rohtak.

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by: Sh. Jitender Kumar Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. AjayGarg, Adv. for respondent.

 

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he got insured his car no.HR10P/9855 from the respondent for the period w.e.f. 23.7.2014 to 22.7.2015 and unfortunately, on 16.1.2015 the said car met with an accident.  On 17.1.2015, DD no.5 was lodged in PP Barona, PS Kundli, distt. Sonepat.  The complainant informed the respondent who deputed the surveyor. The said surveyor has inspected the car till but date, no claim amount has been given to the respondent so far.  The complainant has handed over the key to the repairer and approximately the liability of the company is Rs.85000/- only.  The cover note also reveals regarding the insurance of the passenger as mentioned in column ‘B’ Additional P.A. cover premium Rs.one lac per person for 5” and the respondent has received the premium amount regarding the insurance of the passenger.  So, the respondent is also legally bound to pay the amount of Rs.one lac on account of death of Poonam wife of Amit Sharma who died in the said accident and the dead body was found in the canal and dead body of Poonam was recovered from the canal by Delhi police with the help of villagers.  The complainant has requested the respondent to make the payment of damages of the car and the amount on account of death of his wife namely Smt. Poonam, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the respondent deputed a surveyor and loss assess Shri Jugal Kishore, who has prepared his report and found the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.85000/- as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  As per letter of Jag Mohan Motors, the vehicle is still lying in the workshop and the said Jag Mohan Motors has issued notice to the insured vide letter dated 1.2.2015 mentioning therein that his vehicle was ready on 9.6.2015 and he is liable to pay the parking charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per day.   The complainant even did not co-operate with the repairer namely Jagmohan Motors and did not hand over the key of the vehicle to the repairer.  The respondent has denied the fact that the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.one lac on account of death of Smt. Poonam wife of Amit Sharma.  The surveyor on the basis of net amount of parts and on met amount of labour, has found the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.85000/-.  The complainant has no right to claim compensation on account of death of Smt. Poonam and no claim has been received by the respondent from the side of the complainant in this regard.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent. Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant got insured his car no.HR10P/9855 from the respondent for the period w.e.f. 23.7.2014 to 22.7.2015 and unfortunately, on 16.1.2015 the said car met with an accident.  On 17.1.2015, DD no.5 was lodged in PP Barona, PS Kundli, distt. Sonepat.  The complainant informed the respondent who deputed the surveyor. The said surveyor has inspected the car till but date, no claim amount has been given to the respondent so far.  The complainant has handed over the key to the repairer and approximately the liability of the company is Rs.85000/- only.  The cover note also reveals regarding the insurance of the passenger as mentioned in column ‘B’ Additional P.A. cover premium Rs.one lac per person for 5” and the respondent has received the premium amount regarding the insurance of the passenger.  So, the respondent is also legally bound to pay the amount of Rs.one lac on account of death of Poonam wife of Amit Sharma who died in the said accident and the dead body was found in the canal and dead body of Poonam was recovered from the canal by Delhi police with the help of villagers.  The complainant has requested the respondent to make the payment of damages of the car and the amount on account of death of his wife namely Smt. Poonam, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the respondent deputed a surveyor and loss assess Shri Jugal Kishore, who has prepared his report and found the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.85000/- as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  As per letter of Jag Mohan Motors, the vehicle is still lying in the workshop and the said Jag Mohan Motors has issued notice to the insured vide letter dated 1.2.2015 mentioning therein that his vehicle was ready on 9.6.2015 and he is liable to pay the parking charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per day.   The complainant even did not co-operate with the repairer namely Jagmohan Motors and did not hand over the key of the vehicle to the repairer.  The respondent has denied the fact that the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.one lac on account of death of Smt. Poonam wife of Amit Sharma.  The surveyor on the basis of net amount of parts and on met amount of labour, has found the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.85000/-.  The complainant has no right to claim compensation on account of death of Smt. Poonam and no claim has been received by the respondent from the side of the complainant in this regard.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent.

5.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to get the claim amount of Rs.one lac in respect of death of Smt. Poonam, from the respondent insurance company, because Amit Kumar complainant was not the husband of Smt. Poonam.  In the Ration Card, name of some Amit Sharma son of Satbir Singh has been mentioned and in this ration card also, the name of Poonam Kumari wife of Amit Sharma is mentioned is mentioned.  Thus, we hereby decline the claim of the complainant in respect of death of Poonam Kumari.

          Now coming to the claim amount with regard to damage of car no.HR10P/9855.

          During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the job card retail voice of repair issued by Jagmohan Motors dated 9.6.2015, which shows the estimated cost of repair of Rs.153157/-.  The surveyor report Annexure R2 of Jugal Kishore Duneja shows the net liability of the respondent to the tune of Rs.85000/-.

          We have perused the surveyor report very carefully and found that value of some parts has not been considered by the surveyor.

          The vehicle was insured with the insurance company with IDV of Rs.141107/-.  The surveyor has assessed the net liability of the respondent to the tune of Rs.85000/-, whereas Jag Mohan Motors has issued the estimated cost of repair to the tune of Rs.153157/-. So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions to pay Rs.one lac lumpsum to the complainant is given to the respondent in respect of the damaged car. 

          We have also perused the letters dated 15.8.2015, 7.10.2015 and 1.12.2015 (Annexure R3 to R5) written by Jagmohan Motors to Amit Kumar.  We failed to understand, when these letters are written by Jagmohan Motors Ltd. to Amit Kumar, then how it is placed on record by the respondent insurance company, particularly when no receipt vide which Jagmohan Motors sent the above said letters to the insurance company, is available on the case file.

          However, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to pay lumpsum Rs.one lac to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present compliant till its actual realization.

 

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

 

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  03.05.2016