Delhi

North East

CC/355/2014

Lalit Khanduja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shri Ram Gen. Ins Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 355/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Lalit Khanduja S/o Sh. Mukund Lal Khanduja R/o B-127, 2nd Floor, Gagan Enclave, Ghaziabad, U.P.	Complainant
	Versus
1.               2.	M/s Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd 1001, G.F. Arya Samaj Road, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi.   Also At: E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan-302022 (India)   M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd 431/64/1, Ground Floor, L D A Trust, Estate, Kewal Park, Azadpur,                          New Delhi-110033.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

10.09.2014 05.02.2018 28.02.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he is a lawful registered owner of vehicle Tata Truck bearing model No. TATA/LPS 1613 bearing registration No. HR-38C-2740 and was running the same for his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with OP1 vide insurance policy bearing No. 10003/31/13/321778 vide GCCV-Public carriers other than three wheelers package policy- zone C for the period of one year w.e.f. 28.08.2013 which was renewed vide policy                   No. 10003/31/14/317299 for the period 28.08.2013 to 27.08.2014 for a package policy for an IDV of Rs. 2,33,004/- on payment of premium of Rs. 21,141/- paid by the complainant to OP1. The said vehicle was got financed with OP2 for which the complainant was paying a sum of Rs. 16,484/- per month as equated monthly installments (EMIs). The complainant has stated that the said vehicle met with an accident on 01.11.2013 around 4:30 - 5:00 PM near village Malawan, Etah District about which the complainant had immediately reported Mr. bharat Bhushan and Mr Amreesh ARs of OP1 but since there was no third party loss, no police action was sought by the complainant. The complainant further stated that the OP1 issued a claim No. 1000/31/14/c035995 on the same day. The complainant further stated that no claim was passed in favour of the complainant by the OP1 despite the complainant having provided and submitted all necessary information and documents in original viz copy of vehicle repair estimate, DL, RC, Permit, Fitness, PUC Certificate and repairing bills estimates alongwith duly filled claim form to Shri Hasan, Authorized surveyor of OP1 who had finalized the survey and found the vehicle of the complainant in badly damaged condition. However the said surveyor never supplied his report to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the OP1 did nothing to settle his genuine claim despite being in receipt of all documents provided by the complainant and several reminders and personal visits made by the complainant to the OP1 and due to which inaction, the vehicle was rendered non functional, lying in damaged condition while complainant was burdened with loan installments. The complainant has further stated that even after lapse of 150 days till filing of the complaint, no settlement of claim was done by the OP1 which inaction on the part of OP1 is unfair, illegal and arbitrary and amounting to unfair trade practice, breach of trust, deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs on the afore mentioned grounds and has claimed entitlement for a sum of Rs. 1,29,100/- from the OP1 towards repairing expenses borne by the complainant on 17.11.2013 which he had paid to the various service centers/repairs shops alongwith interest thereon @ 12% p.a. and waiver of loan amount alongwith interest on the due amount imposed by OP2 from date of loss (accident) till date. The complainant further claimed a sum of              Rs. 2,50,000/- from the OPs on account of physical and mental harassment due to negligence and deficiency in service on part of OPs and Rs. 51,000/- on account of cost of litigation and other miscellaneous expenses. Therefore by way of prayer to this Forum, the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions by this Forum to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 4,30,100/- as repairing charges, compensation on account of negligence, deciciency of service, harassment and cost of litigation alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. thereon and waiver of loan amount alongwith interest.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs and written statements were filed by OP1 and OP2.

The OP1 took the preliminary objection that the complainant is trying to mislead this Forum by presenting his complaint as if no decision had been taken on his claim till filing of complaint whereas actually his claim was already repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 31.01.2014 and postal receipt were attached therewith. On the basis of surveyor report of Ms Syed N Hasan and second opinion / surveyor report of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal on grounds that there have been “deliberate and willful misrepresentation on the part of the complainant as to the cause of loss as the damages to the vehicle are pre-existing” and that the complainant was well aware of this repudiation letter. OP1 further took the plea that the intimation about the alleged accident dated 01.11.2013 was given for the first time by the complainant to OP1 on 15.11.2013 thereby violating policy conditions by not given timely intimation to OP1 due to which delay, spot survey could not be done and the OP1 lost valuable opportunity to assess actual damage. The OP1 further stated that the complainant has not filed any document pertaining to occurrence of the said accident with the OP1 and that the damage to the vehicle were pre-existing and old which the complainant is trying to get passed/approved under the garb of alleged self created accident dated 01.11.2013 and therefore both the surveyors which were separate, independent and duly licensed investigators had opined vide reports dated 09.01.2014 and 18.01.2014 respectively that “damages observed were all very old/ deeply rusted / having deeply rusting marks etc and the damages physically observed did not match with the cause of loss etc” and “driver bablu’s statement does not cover cause of loss not any forceful cabin damaged but Chassis frame badly pressed, due to this accident is not possible, cause of loss not sustain damage vehicle. The above losses did not match the cause of loss. So claim is manipulated / fabricated by the insurer”. Therefore the OP1 relying on the observation of the above surveyor and loss assessor averred that the complainant has filed false, fabricated and manipulated claim. The OP1 emphasized on judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of OIC Vs Bachhu Debnath III 1997 CPJ 60 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that surveyor report is a crucial document for assessment of loss and cannot be ignored. OP1 further relied on judgment passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in case titled Amrendra Mishra and Ors Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd in Revision Petition No. 3289/2003 in which the Hon’ble NCDRC held that “we are not inclined to award any sum over and above the amount as recommended by the surveyor for we have to keep certain facts in mind. The person running a workshop would like to inflate the cost of such repairs in their own interest and in inclination of the insured in making the attempt to convert the vehicle as good as totally new vehicle.”  The OP1 therefore prayed for dismissal of the present complaint as the claim of the complainant was not maintainable as damage to the vehicle were pre-existing and therefore no deficiency of service is on the part of OP1. The OP1 also stated that the complainant was submitted complete policy certificate with terms and conditions and there is no unfair, illegal, arbitrary unfair trade practice on the part of OP1 as alleged by the complainant. The OP1 attached the final surveyor report by Syed N.Hasan dated 09.01.2014 and surveyor report by Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal dated 18.01.2014 in support of his defence for repudiation of claim of the complainant.

Written statement was filed by OP2 defending itself that no relief has been sought against it by the complainant and that it being an NBFC had financed the vehicle of the complainant and therefore cannot be held liable for the act of OP1 as OP2 being a separate legal entity and prayed for dismissal of the complaint in view of repudiation of his claim of OP1.

3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by OP1 and OP2 was filed by the complainant disputing the defence taken by both the OPs.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant as well as the OP1 and OP2 exhibiting relevant documentary evidence in support of their case / defence.
5. Written arguments were filed by the complainant as well as both the OPs.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both complainant as well the OPs and have carefully perused the case filed and documentary evidence placed on record thereof.

The existence of policy coverage for the relevant period is not disputed by the OP1. However, the fact cannot be ignored that the complainant nowhere in its complaint mentioned / stated that his claim already stood repudiated by OP1 vide repudiation letter dated 31.01.2014 whereas he had filed the complaint after two months of the issuance of said letter which concealment does not augur well for the case of the complainant. The defence of the OP1 in para 3 and 4 of its written statement of delayed intimation of the alleged accident dated 01.11.2013 being given for the first time after a delay of 2 weeks i.e. on 15.11.2017 amounting to violation of policy conditions is to be read in connection / addition to the stand taken by OP1 for repudiation of claim vide repudiation letter dated 31.01.2014 in which the OP1 had repudiated the claim due to “deliberate and willful misrepresentation as to the cause of loss as the damages to the vehicle are pre-existing”, thereby alleging that the complainant was trying to get passed old damages under the garb of alleged self created accident dated 01.11.2013. The OP1 had based its repudiation on the bases of reports of two separate independent duly licensed surveyor, loss assessor investigator and valuer Shri Syed and Hasan and Shri Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vide reports dated 09.01.2014 and 18.01.2014. The complainant failed to place on record any concrete documentary evidence in rebuttal to the stand taken by the OP1 of pre-existing and old damages and orally submitted that there was no affidavit of the surveyor and no mechanical inspection was carried out by the OP1 before issuance of the policy. There is no FIR on record to prove the factum/ occurrence of the alleged accident on 01.11.2013. On the other hand, there are catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, NCDRC and SCDRC in support of repudiation of claim on grounds of delayed intimation to insurance company and importance / reliance of surveyor report for consideration / repudiation of claims as the case may be. The complainant has failed to rebut the defence taken by OP1 and could not justify / explain the reason for delayed intimation to OP1 as also could not rebut the allegation of pre-existing damages with respect to the vehicle in question as taken by OP1.

7. We therefore find no deficiency in service or negligence or harassment on the part of OPs and therefore the case of the complainant is devoid of merits and the complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.         
8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on  28.02.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member