DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:366 of 2010] Date of Institution : 07.06.2010 Date of Decision :21.07.2011 ------------------------------------- Sh. Bhagwan Dass son of Sh. Nand Lal resident of House No.3578, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh. …..Complainant. V E R S U S 1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, SCO No.139-140, Sector 8-C, 1st Floor, Chandigarh through its Manager. 2. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, SCO No.329, Sector 9, Panchkula through its Manager. 3. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Head Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune through its Managing Director. …..Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:Sh. J. C. Kapoor, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT. Sh. Bhagwan Dass has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed: - i) To pay Rs.1,47,000/- to the complainant along with interest @24% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got his vehicle Tata Ace Temp E-II HT bearing Regd. No.CH-04-A-1505 comprehensively insured with the OP vide policy (Annexure C-1) and paid a premium of Rs.8,444/-. The said vehicle was insured for the period from 8.8.2009 to 7.8.2010. According to the complainant on 6.3.2010, he was going to Ludhiana. The said vehicle was being driven by Sh. Ranbir Singh, who was engaged by him as a driver. When they were about 5 Kilometers short from Samrala, a stray animal came in front of the vehicle. Sh. Ranbir Singh steered the vehicle in order to avoid the collusion. However, Sh. Ranbir Singh could not control the vehicle. Resultantly, the vehicle rammed into a tree standing by the side of the road. The vehicle was damaged and the complainant also received injuries. The matter was intimated to the insurance company and DDR was also got recorded in P.S. Samrala on 10.3.2010. Thereafter, the complainant got the said vehicle repaired from Speed Motors, an authorised dealer of Tata Moors. He spent a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- on the repairs of the said vehicle. He submitted the bill to the OPs. To his surprise, he received letter dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure C-6) intimating him that the claim has been repudiated on the ground that the damage to the vehicle does not correlate to the cause of loss mentioned in the claim form. According to the complainant, repudiation of the claim is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs, it has been admitted that the vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-04-A-1505 was comprehensively insured with it for the period from 8.8.2009 to 7.8.2010. According to OPs, on receipt of the information regarding the accident, M/s BEE VEE Investigating Agency was appointed as investigator. The said investigating agency submitted its report dated 24.4.2010. As per its report, the accident did not take place in the manner pleaded in the complaint as the damage to the car does not correlate with the manner of accident. Though the said investigator assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.82,250.55Ps yet it was clearly mentioned by the said investigator that the claim should be repudiated as the damage to the car does not co-relate with the cause of accident. It has also been mentioned that clarification was also sought from the complainant and correspondence to this effect is Annexure R-4 to R-7. Thus, according to OPs, the claim has been rightly repudiated and there is no deficiency on their part. In these circumstances, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was comprehensively insured with the OPs for the period from 8.8.2009 to 7.8.2010. The accident had taken place on 6.3.2010 and the claim was repudiated on 13.5.2010. 6. The case of OPs is that as per the report of the investigator, the accident had not taken place in the manner pleaded in the complaint. The damage to the car does not co-relate with the manner in which the accident had allegedly occurred. OPs have placed on record the copy of the report submitted by the investigator. 7. In order to base its report, the investigator has relied upon the information given by one Munish who is employee of the insurance company. The investigator has also relied upon the inspection of the spot, which was photographed and the conversation between the complainant and the team of investigators which was also recorded video-graphically and a CD was also prepared. For the reasons best known to OPs, neither the photographs, which were attached with the report have been placed on record nor the CD containing the conversation between the complainant and the team of investigators has been placed on record. The investigator in his report has observed as under: - “…..We inspected the site very minutely & did not find scratch/damaged marks of the impact of the alleged accident on the said tree & also skin of the tree was found in tact, which indicates that the said vehicle had not hit in to the said tree. We arranged some snaps of the spot which are attached with the report. After arranging the photographs, we explained them that the damages to the vehicle do not co-relate with the cause of accident as explained in the claim form as well as in the DDR as no accidental impact to the vehicle from the front side was found…..” 8. The above said version of the investigator stand belied by the letter written by it to the complainant, which is Annexure R-4 whereby clarification was sought from the complainant to the following effect:- “…..Moreover looking to the small size of the tree, even the damage impact on the front portion of the vehicle do not co-relate with the cause of accident…..” 9. In this letter, nowhere it has been mentioned by the investigator that there was no impact of accident on the tree and even the bark of the tree was found intact. No clarification was sought from the complainant to this effect. Affidavit of Sh. Munish, who according to the investigator had told him that he had received a call from the complainant intimating him about the accident and manner of accident has not been placed on record. The reasoning given by the OPs to the effect that the version of the complainant regarding manner of accident cannot be accepted as there was no impact of accident on the front side and the driver has not received injuries, also seems to be erroneous. It is not necessary that the front portion of the vehicle could have hit the tree. Even the right side of the vehicle could have struck the tree. So, the mere fact that there is no damage to the front portion of the car does not necessarily leads to an inference that the accident did not take place in the manner pleaded by the complainant. Similarly, the mere fact that the driver did not receive any injury is no ground to disbelieve the version of the complainant regarding manner of accident. 10. In these circumstances, to our mind, the material on record is not sufficient to place credence on the report of the investigator particularly because the photographs of the place of occurrence and the C.D containing the conversation between the complainant and investigator have not been placed on record. Even the affidavit of Sh. Munish has not been placed on record to prove that the complainant had narrated a different version regarding manner of accident to him. 11. As per the report of investigator, there was damage to the car to the extent of Rs.82,250.55Ps. So, the complainant is entitled to this amount. 12. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OPs to:- i) Pay an amount of Rs.82,250.55Ps to the complainant to indemnify the loss suffered by him in the accident; ii) Pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; iii) Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. 13. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.1,12,250.55Ps i.e. [Rs.82,250.55 + Rs.30,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.07.06.2010 till the date of actual payment besides the payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 21st July, 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
(DISTRICT FORUM-II) COMPLAINT CASE NO.366 OF 2010 [ORDER] Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 18.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 21.07.2011 [PRESIDENT] [MEMBER]
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
