Complainant M/s. Amar Chand Raghu Nath, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Railway Road, Pathankot through its Partner Sh.Raghu Nath Aggarwal through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- as Insured's Declared Value/Sum Insured alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. He has also claimed Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused by him and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses including counsel's fee all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the above said firm through its partner Sh.Raghu Nath Aggarwal in brief is that he had purchased an insurance policy from the opposite parties by paying a premium of Rs.3600/- in cash for his vehicle/Car Santro Car XG (M) bearing registered No.PB-35F-0825 vide cover Note No.GG 31 401207423372 dated 14.1.2013 which was valid from 24.1.2013 to 23.1.2014. The Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the above said vehicle was declared as Rs.1,20,000/- as sum assured. It was stated that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 7.5.2013 and collided with another vehicle (Innova Car) bearing registration No.PB-19A-3434 which was driven by Gurmit Singh son of Buta Singh at Transport Nagar, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. In the said accident the driver of the Santro Car got injured and the car was damaged but due to intervention of respectable and policy of the P.S. Division No.8 Jalandhar both the parties compromised the matter on 8.5.2013. On the same day opposite parties were informed about the accident and spot inspection was also conducted by the authorized representative of the opposite parties who declared the vehicle total loss. It was further stated that the car was sent to service centre of Novelty Hyundai, Near Ravi Hospital, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot and opposite party no.1 deputed its Surveyor to assess the loss of the car of the complainant at above said service centre where he assessed the loss and submitted his report to the opposite party. When complainant enquired from the Surveyor of the opposite parties about the loss/damages then he verbally told to him that he has assessed the loss more than Rs.2 Lac. and when he asked about the assessment of the loss from the service centre they gave him a bill of repair amounting to Rs.2,12,000/- plus. It was also stated that complainant made representations for making the full insured declared value of the vehicle vide his letters dated 25.10.2013 and 24.12.2013 as the cost of the repair of the vehicle was higher than the insured's declared value or sum insured but the opposite parties continuously directing the complainant to get his vehicle repaired by ignoring his genuine demand. It was the liability of the Company to pay the full insured's declared value of the vehicle when it was total loss. It was stated that opposite parties vide their letter dated 31.1.2014 have refused to pay the sum insured/IDV to the complainant in reference to their earlier letter dated 14.8.2013 and closed the case file of the complainant as No Claim. It was further stated that since 31.1.2014 complainant visited the office of opposite parties time and again with the same requests to reopen his file of claim but they refused to do so. It was also stated that complainant served a legal notice dated 11.11.2014 through his counsel to the opposite parties but they had not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, no cause of action action has been accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties for filing the present complaint and no FIR regarding the alleged accident has been lodged by the complainant. On merits, it was stated that complainant was asked to get the vehicle in question repaired and submit the bills of repairs with the opposite parties for payment. Regarding this number of letters have been sent to the complainant by the opposite parties but he did not submit any bill for payment and after a lapse of long period the case file of the complainant was closed as No Claim. There is no deficiency or lapse on the part of the opposite parties and complainant himself responsible for it. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.
- Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of letter dated 14.8.2013 Ex.OP-1 and copy of letter dated 11.11.2013 Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We find that the OP insurers here have repudiated/closed the impugned ‘accident-claim’ as ‘No Claim’ (Ex.C11) for of the two prime reasons: i) the insured complainant not consenting for ‘Repairs’ of the accidental ‘Hyundai Car’ since ‘repairs estimate’ Ex.C5 from the authorized workshop ‘Novelty Hyundai’ for Rs 2.12 Lac favored the ‘total-loss’ claim being much in excess than the indicator 75% mark of the IDV of Rs 1.20 Lac in the Policy cover-note Ex.C1; and ii) the road-accident could have been a fabricated story in the absence of the requisite FIR with the Police having jurisdiction over the alleged accident-site. Somehow, going by the evidential records as available on the complaint file both the repudiation alibis are legally untenable. No Surveyors’ Report and/ or any other cogent evidence has been produced by the OP insurers (with no reasons put forth) to confirm the ‘repair-feasibility’ and ‘repair-worthiness’ of the accidental Car. The Insurers have been blind-fold insisting upon the ‘repairs’ even at the face of the ‘reliable’ estimates from the ‘authorized’ Hyundai workshop being much in excess not only of the 75% of IDV (insured’s declared value) but also of the ‘full’ IDV as per the Ex.C1. Further, the OP insurers appear to have ignored/ overlooked the Ex.C4 the DDR (Daily Diary Report) of the Police Division # 08 at Jalandhar duly confirming the accident and the subsequent ‘amicable disposal’ etc. Lastly, we respectfully bow to concur with the propositions as laid out by the honorable Senior Courts in the citations quoted both by the complainant and the OP insurers and have duly considered and perused the applicable interpretations as guidance and instruction during the present adjudicatory. We conclude to hold the OP insurers guilty of having infringed rather bruised the complainants’ valuable and preferred consumer rights and thus liable to an adverse award under the Act.
8. In the light of the above, we find the OP insurer liable to settle the impugned insurance claim and thus ORDER them to pay to the complainant the full IDV amount under the related Policy besides Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9 % PA with effect from the date of the orders till actually paid.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
MAY 11, 2015 Member.
*YP*
