DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 660/2013
Date of Institution – 16/08/2013
Date of Order - 22/07/2016
In matter of
Mr Arvind Kumar, adult
R/o-B-212, Gazipur Village
Delhi 110092………………………………………………..…………………..….Complainant
Vs
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Div. Office- 10, F-101-106
N-1, BMC House, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 ………..Respondent
Complainant’s Advocate - Sh Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Opponent’s Advocate - Sh Rajesh Kumar Gupta
Corum— Sh Sukhdev Singh-President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant to claim sum assured amount under policy in accident case which was denied by OP.
Complainant was owner of Maruti EECO vehicle vide registration no. DL1T-7801.
The said vehicle was insured with OP vide policy no. 35101031126331861086 from 25/08/2012 to 24/08/2013 for a sum of Rs 2,73,570/-
On 24/06/2013, the said vehicle got damaged while it was parked at the side of road and the complainant was attending his natural call. He immediately called crane service who towed the accidented vehicle to OP’s authorized service centre at Bagga Link service centre at Delhi.
Complainant also intimated OP about the damage of his vehicle on the same day. At service centre, the said vehicle was in total loss stage and it could not be serviced. The said vehicle was still with the service station.
Complainant submitted all the required documents for claim purpose with OP, but claim was denied. Hence complainant filed this complaint and claimed the insured value of the vehicle along with compensation of sum of Rs one lakh and litigation charges Rs 21,000/-.
Complaint was scrutinized along with annexures filed by the complainant and notice was served to OP. In its written statement, OP denied claim by not putting claim bills.
OP appointed surveyor on 03/09/2013 wide Exhibit RW1/2 under the name of GPS Bagga & Associates who assessed loss of Rs 93,720/- against the estimated cost of the parts of the vehicle to sum of Rs 551698/.
OP also submitted evidences containing terms and condition of the said policy and stated that under Section 1, Loss or Damage, amount was paid after depreciation of vehicle age as under exhibit RW1/1.
OP submitted that during towing the vehicle, more damage had occurred and ‘Subsiquential loss / damages were not payable under the terms and condition of policy. OP also said that actual damages could be paid, but not other damages. Hence the claim was repudiated and termed as justified.
Both the parties submitted their evidences on affidavit which are on record. Heard both the parties and order was reserved.
By going through all the contentions and evidences on record, it is clear that the said vehicle was insured with OP and OP has also accepted the same. It is also accepted and facts on record that accident had occurred without the negligence of owner/complainant as the said vehicle was parked at the side of the road and was hit by some unknown vehicle and immediately service centre was informed and police report was also done. The accidented vehicle was towed by OP’s authorized service station through its own crane. OP’s appointed surveyor report was also on record.
Now we have to see whether total loss of vehicle, due to accident, to be paid by OP under valid policy or could be denied by taking shelter of Subsiquential loss / damages.
We have gone through some of citations as –
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mohammed Jakir Hussain-
II(2014)CPJ 235 NC, decided on 28/03/2014.
It was observed that vehicle had total loss and was insured. OP appointed surveyor and assessed the loss. Claim was repudiated. Complainant alleged deficiency in services of OP. District Forum allowed the complaint but State
Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence in Revision Petition before National Commission, it was observed that vehicle inspector has stated in his report that vehicle could not be repaired. District Forum rightly allowed claim on Total Loss. Impugned order was upheld.
Vishnu Singh vs IFFCI TOKIO General Insurance Co. & others – III(2014)CPJ546-NC—decided on 01/08/2014.
It was observed that Insured vehicle had total loss and surveyor was appointed by OP and claim was repudiated. Complainant alleged deficiency of OP in their service. District Fora allowed the complaint and State Commission also allowed the appeal. Under revision before National Commission, vehicle was badly damaged and was beyond repair. Here report of mechanic is not necessary. Compensation was awarded to the tune of IDV along with 6% interest from the date of accident.
Chaitanya Prasad & others vs National Insurance Co Ltd. –
IV(2013)CPJ 417-NC - Decided on 10/10/2013.
It was observed that total loss of vehicle in accident, complainant is entitled to get compensation based on the IDV of vehicle.
Taking reference of above citations, it is clear that total loss of vehicle in accident, OP cannot take shelter on flimsy ground for repudiating genuine claims.
Hence, we allow the complaint and pass the following order-
The OP is directed to pay the claim on the basis of IDV of the vehicle with 9% interest within 30 days from the filing of this complaint till realization. We also award compensation sum of Rs 10,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment caused by OP due to their deficient services and Rs 1000/- as litigation charges.
The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member
Mr Sukhdev Singh - President
