Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

Consumer Complaint No. 406

Instituted on : 22/09/2020

Decided on : 03.09.2024

PawanAhlawat (Age-23 years) s/o Sh. Dharambir R/o Village- Kishangarh, Tehsil- Meham, Distt. Rohtak

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Vs

National Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Branch Office at Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak.

…...Opposite Party

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. VisheshDangi, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                 The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite party under section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Brief facts of the present complaint are given as under:-

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a MarutiBaleno Delta Petrol Car bearing registration No. HR-15D-6466, duly insured with the opposite party vide Stand Alone Own Damage policy no. 420304311910002937, effective from 27.12.2019 to 26.12.2020 for IDV (Insured Declared Value) of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 21.01.2020, on KheriMeham Road, near Meham, DistrictRohtak when a stray cow appeared suddenly in front of car, the complainant tried to save the cow but could not control over his car which got imbalanced and got damaged. The complainant sustained injuries in the said accident and immediately after recovery, he intimated the opposite party without any delay.  The car was brought to JagmohanMotors Pvt. Ltd. and same was got repaired by paying Rs.1,73,220/-. The complainant applied for insurance claim of his vehicle and completed the required formalities of the opposite party. A surveyor was appointed by the opposite party who submitted his report but neither the claim of the complainant has been repudiated nor the same is given by the opposite party till date to the complainant. The said act and conduct on the part of opposite party shows clear cut deficiency in services towards the complainant. Due to their illegal act and conduct, the complainant has suffered a huge monetary loss due to non-disbursement of claim qua the above said MarutiBaleno Delta Petrol car. It is therefore, prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the total amount of claim i.e. Rs.1,73,220/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony & pain caused to the complainant besides any other relief, which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement and took some preliminary objection viz. the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, the complainant has concealed the true facts and did not come with clean hands before the Hon’ble Commission etc. On merits, it is submitted that on the basis of investigation report submitted at B.O. Hansi, the alleged car No. HR-15-D-6466, which was produced for pre-inspection at the time of insurance and later on, the said car No. HR-15-D-6466 which was produced for survey after the accident, was not same and many visual and technical differences were observed in the pre-inspection and accidental vehicle. Thus there is a violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy. Therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. However, final survey was conducted by Sh. Sunil Vashist Surveyor and Loss Assessor and he assessed the net loss to be Rs.1,70,000/- but when the opposite party did not receive the reply of the letters written to the complainant, the opposite party passed ‘NO CLAIM’ on the basis of pre-inspection and final survey report. As such, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the opposite party.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 27.05.2022. Learned counsel for opposite party also tendered in his evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 but failed to adduce any further evidence, hence, the evidence of opposite party was closed by the court order on 01.06.2023.

4.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                As per the written statement filed by the respondent, the claim of the complainant has been treated as No Claim vide letter dated 20.10.2020. The respondent officials have submitted that some visualand technical differences have been observed in the pre-inspection photographs and accidental vehicle. In fact the policy of the vehicle was issued on dated 27.12.2019 after pre inspection. At the time of pre-inspection some photographs have been taken by the then technical person. After that the accidental vehicle has been surveyed by the surveyor on dated 21.01.2020 and he found that as per pre-inspection photographs  the car number HR-15D-6466 is having a rear camera fitted on the rear bumper but at the time of survey the said camera was missing in the alleged car. It was further noticed that in pre inspection report, there were black patties in the side of the car but in the survey report these are missing on actual car no.HR15D-6466 during the survey. So after considering the above mentioned grounds the claim of the complainant has been treated as ‘No Claim’ by the insurance company. The main contention of the repudiation letter dated 20.10.2020 are as under :-

“On the basis of investigator report submitted at BO Hansi, the alleged car no.HR15D6466 which was pre-inspected at the time of insurance & later actual car HR15D6466 which was produced for survey after the accident/loss is not the same & many visual & technical differences has been observed in pre-inspection & accidental vehicle.”

6.                We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The respondent insurance company failed to place on record any pre-inspection photographs before the Commission for perusal. The survey report Ex.R3 dated 22.06.2020 is having 10 pages and merely a note has been given by the surveyor  at the end of this report i.e.  “After going through the pre-inspection report, I have observed that the vehicle shown in the photographs of pre inspection is different from the accidental vehicle. In my opinion the matter should be investigated till that claim may please be settled”. As per our opinion the surveyor has not mentioned anywhere that the damages are old in nature in the accidental vehicle. Moreover pre-inspection report and the accidental vehicle photographs have not been placed on record by the insurance company or has not been attached by the surveyor with his report Ex.R3. As per this report the surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs.170000/-. We have also observed that no notice has been given to the complainant for clarification on differences observed by the surveyor in his report. Without hearing the complainant and without giving any opportunity to the complainant to clear his position, the letter dated 20.10.2020 has been issued to the complainant which is against the law and natural justice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.170000/-.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claimamount of Rs.170000/-(Rupees one lac seventy thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.09.2020 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.09.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member