Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                         Complaint No. : 537.

                                                          Instituted on     : 02.11.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 02.11.2020.

Anil Kumar, aged 48 years son of Maya Chand, resident of Meham, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Office at G.T. Road, Hansi, District Hisar(Haryana).

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:   SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Prinkal Khurana, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of truck(TATA 2518) bearing registration No.HR-46B-6677 and the same was insured with the respondent for a period from 22.09.2017 to 21.09.2018 vide policy No. 420304311710000130 and IDV value of the same was Rs.5,40,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on dated 24.01.2018 near Kahanapur-Sundana Mor, Beri Road, in the area of Police Station Kalanaur and the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged in this accident. An FIR bearing No.41/2018 under Section 279, 304-A, 337 and 427 of IPC was lodged in Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak. It is averred that the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding the said accident. The opposite party deputed Mr. I.B.Mehta, surveyor, who inspected the said damage vehicle and submitted his report in the office of Insurance Company. The complainant had submitted all the required documents to the said Surveyor as per his demand for settlement of the claim. Complainant requested the opposite party many times to settle the claim and also served a legal notice but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.  As such it is averred that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.5,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of accident till realization to the complainant and also pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the spot and final survey were conducted by the surveyor and loss assessors and they submitted their report for the loss and damages to the insured vehicle. It is also submitted that opposite party also appointed Mr.M.Jayanta Singh investigator for the verification of driving license of driver Krishan Kumar of the insured vehicle from DTO/LA, Manipur, and the investigator submitted his report dated 15.11.2018 with the findings that driving license no.164471/ch of Krishan Kumar is not genuine as per official record, and DTO Manipur also issued letter vide Ref. No.IO/(21)/VERI/DL/DTO/(CH)/07 dated 12.11.2018 with the contents that : “DL is not found from our record and not able to verified. Hence it is not possible to report proof of a genuine of DL in question”. The respondent also wrote letters to the complainant but neither any document nor any reply was given by the complainant. The competent authority of the respondent closed the claim file of the complainant as ‘NO CLAIM’. It is pertinent to mention here that the driver of the vehicle must possess valid and effective driving licence while driving the vehicle on the road. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.8.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R15 and has closed his evidence on dated 31.10.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that as per report of investigator,  DL of the driver was found fake as the same was not found in the record of DTO Manipur. In this regard we have observed that firstly the affidavit of investigator has not been placed on record and secondly the original report has not been placed on record. It is also observed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of other vehicle which is evident from the copy of FIR Ex.C3. Regarding the plea of respondent that they have sent letters to the complainant Ex.R12, Ex.R13 and Ex.R15 regarding some clarification but on the overleaf of Ex.R14, it is mentioned that its address is not correct. Meaning thereby these letters have never been served to the complainant. As such the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount.

6.                          Perusal of the survey report Ex.R10 shows that the vehicle was badly damaged and the repairing cost would much more. As such the assessment has been made by the surveyor on net of salvage basis Rs.264000/- which is on very lower side. Wreck value has been assessed on very higher side and no opinion of various dealers regarding wreck value of the said truck has been taken from the market and it is not proved that on which basis they have assessed the wreck value of the vehicle. The vehicle is damaged badly and the same cannot be repaired or reused. As such we have assessed the wreck value of Rs.75000/- and claim is assessed after deducting the wreck value from the IDV(Rs.540000/-) without R.C.

7.                          Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.465000/-(Rupees four lac sixty five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.02.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation 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:

02.11.2020.

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

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

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

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.

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

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.