Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1061/2019

Pushpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. R.C.Gupta & Sudhir Gupta

21 Sep 2022

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1061 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	23.10.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	21.09.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Pushpinder Singh s/o Sh.Sher Singh, #5, Village Chhota Garh, P.o. Banondi, Narain Garh, District Ambala 134203 (Haryana)

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, REgd. & Corp Office E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur 302022 through its authorized signatory.

 

2]  M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO No.178, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh 160036 through its Branch Manager.

 

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER

                               

For Complainant : Sh.R.C.Gupta, Advocate

For OPs         : Sh.Sachin Ohri, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant’s Hyundai Eon Era Car bearing Regd. No.HR-04-G-8336, duly insured with OP Insurance Company for an IDV of Rs.2,88,000/- valid from 28.10.2018 to 19.10.2019 vide policy Ann.C-2, met with an accident on 28.10.2018 at about 6.30 PM near Village Akbarpur, when it was being driven by Sh.Chander Kant Sigh, brother of insured.  It is stated that the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, whereas the driver Sh.Chander Kant Singh also received injuries for which he took treatment (Ann.C-4).  A DDR dated 21.11.2018 about the accident was recorded by the police.  Intimation about it was also given to OP Insurance Company, who appointed Surveyor & Loss Assessor Sh.G.S.Brar to assess the loss. The damaged vehicle was taken to M/s Samta Hyundai, an authorized dealer, near Vita Milk Plan, G.T. Road, Ambala City and estimates were prepared.  However, on the advice of Surveyor, the damaged vehicle was taken to High Tech Motors, Industrial Area, Chandigarh for cashless repairs if the vehicle is repairable.  It is stated that the complainant has provided all requisite documents to the OP Insurance Company as well as to Surveyor appointed by them, but despite of all that they did not settle the claim knowing that the insured damaged vehicle is total loss case, closed the complainant’s case as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 24.1.2019 (Ann.C-11) and express their inability to pay the claim on ground of misrepresentation vide letter dated 2.4.2019 (Ann.C-14).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has misrepresented the answering OPs about the date of actual loss and as such made breach of terms & conditions of the policy.  It is stated that the complainant at his own and as per his convenience took the vehicle for repair firstly at M/s Samta Hyundai, Ambala City and then moved it to High Tech Motors, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. It is submitted that the complainant never provided any document required by the surveyor even after sending various letters to the complainant.  It is pleaded that the complainant has manipulated the actual date of loss and never provided any document to surveyor despite several letters, so finally, with no other option, the OP on 2.4.2019 repudiated the claim on the ground of misrepresentation and for want of documents. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by complainant controverting the assertions of OPs.

   

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record.   

 

6]       The facts pertaining to insurance of the vehicle in question effective from 28.10.2018 to 19.10.2019, its being damaged during currency of the insurance policy while being driven by brother of the complainant, lodging of claim for the damaged insured vehicle and it being repudiated by the OP Insurance Company are admitted between the parties.

 

7]       The perusal of the record reveals that the claim of the complainant has been declared as ‘No Claim’ for want of certain documents from the complainant and then repudiated vide letter dated 2.4.2019 (Ann.R-3).  The meticulous reading of the record reveals that all the documents required by the OP Insurance Company are on record of the case file and also presumed to have been supplied to the OPs, which are sufficient enough to support the claim of the complainant. 

 

8]       It is also evident on record that the insured vehicle in question, which got damaged in the accident during policy period on 28.10.2018, has been declared as ‘Total Loss’ as its repair costs of Rs.2,77,286/- (Ann.R-5) exceeds 75% of its insured declared value of Rs.2,88,000/- (Ann.C-2).  In our opinion, the OP Insurance Company has committed gross deficiency in service by not honouring the genuine claim of the complainant.

 

9]       The OPs in order to show their bona-fide have also not placed on record any Surveyor Report despite of the fact that the intimation regarding accident of the insured vehicle was admittedly given to the insurance company.  The OPs in their written statement have stated that they have appointed Sh.Naveet Singh, Surveyor, who sent various letters to the complainant to process the claim but complainant did not reply said letters and accordingly, the Company vide letter dated 2.4.2019 (Ann.R-2) repudiated the claim due to breach of terms and conditions of the policy.  We are of the view that in any case, the Surveyor was to prepare  & submit report assessing loss to the insured vehicle and he should not have acted as an investigator. The OPs also did not dispute or deny that the insured damaged vehicle in question is a ‘Total Loss’ case, so they should have settled the claim.  Therefore, the repudiation of claim is wrong and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties is proved. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties with directions to pay to the complainant the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle i.e. Rs.2,88,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of loss 28.10.2018 till the date of payment. The Opposite Parties is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental agony & harassment, along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.  The salvage of damaged insured vehicle shall be retained by the OP Insurance Company and the complainant shall sign all necessary documents in favour of the OP Company in respect of the insured damaged vehicle in question, if desired by OPs.  The parking charges, if any, shall also be borne by the OP Insurance Company.  

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.20000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st September, 2022                                                              Sd/-  

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER