Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/251/2018

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Kumar Nikshep Adv.

19 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	251/2018
Date of Institution	:	02.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	19.03.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Daljit Singh s/o Late Sh.Harbhajan Singh aged 59 years r/o H.No.25, Village Palsora, UT, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 82, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by      

              Sh.Kumar Nikshep, Advocate for the complainant

                None for the OP.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant got insured his car make Toyata Fortuner bearing registration No.CH-01-BD-2020 with the OP for the period from 25.06.2017 to 24.06.2018 vide insurance cover note (Annexure C-3).  On 28.12.2017, the vehicle in question being driven by Sh.Rupinder Singh, son of the complainant met with an  accident and suffered damages and FIR No.272 dated 29.12.2017 under Sections 279,337 IPC was registered with the Police Station Maloya, Chandigarh in this regard.    After releasing the vehicle on superdari, the complainant took the vehicle to M/s Emm Pee Motors Ltd., Chandigarh for its repairs and informed the OP regarding the same .  He also submitted requisite documents with the OP for getting the claim. It has further been averred that he incurred a sum of Rs.3,45,935/- on the repairs of the vehicle  but the OP refused to pay the claim vide letter dated 14.03.2018  on the ground that there has been mis-representation of the facts with regard to the driver details.  It has further been averred that two persons namely Sh.Rohit Joshi and Ram has sustained injuries in the accident and one Sh.Rohit Joshi has filed the claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sh.Rupinder Singh, son of the complainant has also been made as respondent No.1 being driver of the vehicle in question besides owner and insurer of the vehicle in question as respondents No.2 and 3. It has further been asserted that he intimated the OP about the driver details i.e. Rupinder Singh and submitted all the requisite documents for getting the claim released but the OP has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that on investigation of the claim, it was found that the complainant had mis-represented the true facts in the claim form and given wrong details of the driver and due to which the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.03.2018. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The main defence of the OP is that the complainant had mis-represented the facts with regard to the claim form and as such the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.03.2018.  However, we are unable to accept this submission of the OP because they have not been able to place on record any documentary evidence to show that Sh.Varinder Kakkar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident instead of Sh.Rupinder Singh.  Besides this, the complainant has place on record a copy of the claim petition filed by one of the injured namely Sh.Rohit Joshi who received injuries in the said accident took place on 28.12.2017 with the vehicle in question against the son of the complainant namely Sh.Rupinder Singh, who was driving the vehicle in question on the said fateful day of the accident.  In addition to this, the Counsel for the complainant has specifically stated at the bar that a case of rash and negligent driving was registered against Sh.Rupinder Singh and he is on bail now. 
6.         No doubt, the investigator in his report dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure R-4) has stated that as per the claim form, the insured’s son Rupinder was driving the car at the time of the accident but as per the news item, the police officials have stated that Sh.Virender Kakkar was driving the car at that time and they both were drunken while driving.  However, the OP has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence in support of its plea that Sh.Virender Kakkar was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident.  Otherwise also, the news items without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then published it and in this process the truth might get perverted or grabbled and the news items cannot be said to be admissible in evidence.
7.         A close scrutiny of the survey report (Annexure R-6) reveals that the Surveyor of the OP has assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,22,439/- whereas the complainant has claimed Rs.3,45,935/- paid through demand draft to M/s Emm Pee Motors Ltd. on account of the repairs of the vehicle in question and as such the complainant is held entitled to Rs.3,45,935/- only incurred by him on the repairs of the vehicle in question.
8.         Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, the OP is proved to be committed a deficiency in service by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.3,45,935/- to the complainant incurred on account of the repairs of the insured vehicle.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 

10.           This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization besides litigation costs.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.03.2019                                                      sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER