Delhi

New Delhi

CC/130/2018

Preety - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

 

C.C.No.130/2018

 

Ms. Preety,

D/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,

R/o H.No.A-1/2-3, Sec.6,

Rohini, Delhi.

                               ….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Regional Office-IV,

         Delhi Metro Parking Building,

        Opp. New Delhi Railway Station,

        New Delhi.

       Through its Regional Manager.

 

 

2. Madhu Sudan,

         Authorized Maruti Dealer,

        B-5, Lawyers Colony,

        Bye-Pass Road, Agra, UP.

 Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. DL 3C CL 2294.  The said vehicle was insured with OP-1 vide policy bearing No.35101031166139113075 for the period from 28.11.2016 to  28.11.2017 and the I.D.V. of the vehicle was Rs.4,82,682/-. The terms and conditions of the policy were never supplied to the complainant.   On 27.03.2017, the said vehicle met with an accident and was towed to the authorized dealer of Maruti on the same day and was handed over the workshop of OP-2 on the same night.   On the instructions of OP-2, all the relevant documents including claim form etc. were submitted to OP-1.  After one week when the complainant contacted OP-2 and inquired about the  status of vehicle in question, OP-2 informed  that  the vehicle is totally damaged and is awaiting for the surveyor from OP-1 to inspect the vehicle and for further necessary directions.  The   complainant visited OP-2 on many occasion but all in vain. On 17.8.2017, the complainant received a letter from Girraj Singh, Surveyors and Investigators, regarding the delay of intimation of damaged vehicle to OP-1 by the complainant.  The complainant and her representative again and again visited OP-2 and also sent mails but till date the vehicle is not repaired by OP-2 and same is in the possession of OP-2.  Moreover, the complainant also requested  OP-1 to settle her claim but OP-1 has not settled her claim, hence this complaint.

2.        Complaint has been contested by  OP-1.  OP-1 has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above.  OP-1 stated that the complainant has filed the present claim with the OP on 23.7.2017, after the inordinate delay of around 4 months i.e. on 25/26.7.2017 whereas the accident in question tookplace on 23.3.2017.  OP-1 appointed a surveyor Mr. Girraj Singh on 26.7.2017 who submitted the survey report to the OP.  After filing the surveyor report, OP has sent a letter dt. 25.9.2017 seeking explanation within 7 days that “Why should your claim not be repudiated?”. But the complainant has not sent any reply, therefore, OP finally  repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dt. 25.9.2017.  OP-1 has further stated that the complainant has failed to intimate the information about the accident well within time  and further failed to fulfill the required query of the OP.  Hence the complainant has violated the condition No.1 of terms and condition of the policy.  Further prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.        We have heard arguments advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.        Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the policy in question, accident as well as the loss to the vehicle.  The OP has placed on record the copy of the surveyor report as per which the loss to the vehicle in question is to the tune of Rs.3,48,070/-.  The OP Insurance Co. had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in intimation, whereas the complainant has already informed the OP that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by her father in law and as he went into the state of shock due to accident, he failed to inform the complainant about the accident due to which she could not inform the Insurance Co. well within time.

6.        The OP Insurance Co. instead of condoning the delay and deciding the claim on merit arbitrarily repudiated the claim under the pretext of inordinate delay, whereas it is admitted by both the parties that the vehicle in question was badly damaged. The OP-1 had failed to bring on record the original driving licence of father in law of complainant.

7. It is on record that complainant replied the letter of surveyor on 25/08/2017. It is on record that vehicle was towed to the authorised dealer of Maruti i.e. OP-2 with the help of crane and its receipt is enclosed. The oP-1 has based its repudiation of claim on the basis of delay in informing the incident. But it should be borne in mind that occurrence of theft is different from accident. In case of a accident facts speaks for itself and OP-2 has opined that vehicle was totally damaged. This fact is not disputed that vehicle was damaged in an accident. Later on, One Giri Raj, Surveyor was appointed by OP-1 to assess the damages of the vehicle. In a case of theft, that can be manipulation but there in remote possibility that accident can be manipulated and there is no plausible reason for it. Claim cannot be rejected in a mechanical manner. The claim has been rejected on flimsy grounds without application of considerate mind.

The Hn’ble Supreme Court of India in  Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr. In Civil Appeal no. 653/2020 decided on 24/01/2020 has held as under:-

“Usually, mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforced authorities, cannot amount to a breach of ‘duly to co-operate’ of the insured’.”

This judgement is squarely applicable in the present case. The information to OP-2 authorized service dealer of Maruti tantamount as information to OP-1, hence, OP-1 cannot repudiate the claim as delay in intimation.

7.        In view of the judgment cited above, we are of the considered view that  arbitrarily rejection of the claim of the complainant by OP-1 amounts to deficiency in services on its part.   We therefore hold, OP-1 guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

i).        Pay to the complainant I.D.V. of the vehicle  i.e. Rs.4,82,682/-. alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 3.4.2018 till its realization.

ii)         Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation,  which will include the cost of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

           Announced in open Forum on 31/01/2020.

 

 

            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                         PRESIDENT

 

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                      

     MEMBER