Haryana

Sonipat

CC/238/2015

Krishni Bhai S/o Shera - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance co. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Prince Pruthi

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.238 of 2015

                                Date of Instt. 27.07.2015 

                                Date of order: 18.07.2016

 

 

Krishni Bhai wife of Shera, r/o VPO Rajapur, distt. Panipat.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

1.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Sonepat.

2.Joginder Singh (Chief Regional Manager) National Insurance Co. Ltd., RO-II, SCO 337-340, Sector 35B, Chandigarh.

3.Lt. Col. GPS Bagga (Surveyor) H.No.172, Arjun Vihar, Sector 28, Noida.

4.RN Sharma (Investigator) H.No.408/08, Rajender Nagar, Red road, behind BDO Office, Kurukshetra.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by: Sh. Prince Pruthi Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. HC Jain, Adv. for respondents.

 

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging herself to be the registered owner of the vehicle no.HR55B/5517, Model 2003 and the same was insured with the respondent no.1 for the period w.e.f. 10.3.2011 to 9.3.2011 with IDV of Rs.3,50,000/-.  Unfortunately, the said vehicle has met with an accident on 12.11.2011 and was shifted to M/s Sita Automobiles Ganaur for its repair.  The complainant has informed the respondent for appointment of surveyor to assess the loss, but of no use.  After that the loss estimate was prepared and intimated to Divisional Office, National Ins. Co. Ltd. Panipat alongwith all the relevant documents.  The respondent no.3 has inspected the accidental vehicle on 18.11.2011.  All the claim documents were submitted to the surveyor respondent no.3 and as per the survey report, the value of the accidental vehicle was Rs.one lac with RC and the respondent no.3 has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,49,000/- after deduction of policy clause.  The respondent no.4 was appointed for investigation of the claim, who has submitted his report alongwith the report of forensic lab on 19.4.2012.  After the confirmation of the respondent no.3, the complainant has sold the vehicle for Rs.60,000/- alongwith RC and has informed the matter to the respondent no.3, who vide letter dated 7.5.2012 has asked the complainant that she cannot sold the vehicle because it was the property of the insurer. The respondent no.2 has instructed the respondent no.3 and 4 to reject the claim of the complainant. When the complainant has sold the vehicle on the recommendation of the respondent no.3, then to change the assessment is not fair by an independent surveyor/respondent no.3.  The respondent no.4 has again submitted the investigation report on 8.6.2012.  The respondent no.4 has put the signature of Ajmer Singh son of Mool Chand and write the statement himself.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 3.10.2012 and the complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal.  So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  The alleged occurrence took place as per the complainant on 12.11.2011 and the present complaint has been filed after a lapse of four years. The respondent no.3 was deputed to assess the cause, nature and extent of loss of the vehicle and on 8.1.2012 he has raised some doubts about the cause, place and date of alleged accident and thus, respondent no.4 was deputed for complete investigation of the case. The alleged driving licence of Surender Kumar which has no bearing since it has not been established that who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.  As per investigation, Sandeep was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. The disposal of the vehicle by the complainant for a sum of Rs.60,000/- alongwith RC is illegal and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.8.2012.  The complainant has sold the accidental vehicle at her own without the consent of the insurance company.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle no.HR55B/5517, Model 2003 and the same was insured with the respondent no.1 for the period w.e.f. 10.3.2011 to 9.3.2011 with IDV of Rs.3,50,000/-.  Unfortunately, the said vehicle has met with an accident on 12.11.2011 and was shifted to M/s Sita Automobiles Ganaur for its repair.  The complainant has informed the respondent for appointment of surveyor to assess the loss, but of no use.  After that the loss estimate was prepared and intimated to Divisional Office, National Ins. Co. Ltd. Panipat alongwith all the relevant documents.  The respondent no.3 has inspected the accidental vehicle on 18.11.2011.  All the claim documents were submitted to the surveyor respondent no.3 and as per the survey report, the value of the accidental vehicle was Rs.one lac with RC and the respondent no.3 has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,49,000/- after deduction of policy clause.  The respondent no.4 was appointed for investigation of the claim, who has submitted his report alongwith the report of forensic lab on 19.4.2012.  After the confirmation of the respondent no.3, the complainant has sold the vehicle for Rs.60,000/- alongwith RC and has informed the matter to the respondent no.3, who vide letter dated 7.5.2012 has asked the complainant that she cannot sold the vehicle because it was the property of the insurer. The respondent no.2 has instructed the respondent no.3 and 4 to reject the claim of the complainant. When the complainant has sold the vehicle on the recommendation of the respondent no.3, then to change the assessment is not fair by an independent surveyor/respondent no.3.  The respondent no.4 has again submitted the investigation report on 8.6.2012.  The respondent no.4 has put the signature of Ajmer Singh son of Mool Chand and write the statement himself.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 3.10.2012 and the complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal.  So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  The alleged occurrence took place as per the complainant on 12.11.2011 and the present complaint has been filed after a lapse of four years. The respondent no.3 was deputed to assess the cause, nature and extent of loss of the vehicle and on 8.1.2012 he has raised some doubts about the cause, place and date of alleged accident and thus, respondent no.4 was deputed for complete investigation of the case. The alleged driving licence of Surender Kumar which has no bearing since it has not been established that who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.  As per investigation, Sandeep was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. The disposal of the vehicle by the complainant for a sum of Rs.60,000/- alongwith RC is illegal and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.8.2012.  The complainant has sold the accidental vehicle at her own without the consent of the insurance company.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

           In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the case law titled as Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and others, CPC 2002(2) page 658,  Mohan Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Yadav, 2012(1) CPC page 600.

           In the present complaint, the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

           In the present case, four survey and investigations in respect of the vehicle in question were conducted.  Firstly the respondent no.4 has issued two reports dated 19.4.2012 and 8.6.2012 and Lt. GPS Bagga has submitted his report dated 24.4.2012 and 22.6.2012.  Initially, Lt. GPS Bagga was appointed as investigator  and he prepared his report dated 24.4.2012 and submitted before the insurance company on 26.4.2012.  As per this report, the vehicle is in total loss condition.  The net liability of the insurance company on the basis of net on salvage basis comes to Rs.2,49,000/-.  Another report in respect of the vehicle in question was submitted on dated 19.4.2012 by Shri RN Sharma, Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police and the said surveyor has investigated the matter and has submitted his report alongwith the report issued by Forensic Science Lab, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal.  Thereafter third report was submitted on dated 8.6.2012 again by Shri RN Sharma and the last/fourth report was submitted by Lt. GPS Bagga on dated 22.6.2012.  The surveyor Lt. GPS Bagga in the report dated 22.6.2012 has assessed the loss as Rs.2,97,514/-.  In the present case, the main contention of the respondent insurance company is regarding the factum of alleged occurrence, timings, nature and existence of alleged damages caused to the vehicle.  The main apprehension of the respondent is that the vehicle has met with an accident approximately on 20.3.2011 and not on 12.11.2011.  The insurance company has sought the opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal which is as under:-

 

CONCLUSION  From the examination of damages noted on the vehicle, it is concluded that while moving with high speed, the front left portion of the Toyota Qualis might have collided with a back of stationary heavy vehicle most probably on the back of the truck on the same side of road which results in the sudden stopping of the jeep and also got out of control.  The other vehicles coming behind the jeep might have collided on the back left and back right portion of the jeep as evidence from the damages noted on the back left and back right portion of Toyota Qualis. 

 

Observations    The vehicle was thoroughly examined for the presence of blood through chemical tests.  However, blood could not be detected anywhere on the vehicle.

 

                So, after considering the conclusions and observations, it is clear that the vehicle met with an accident.  Moreover the insurance policy period of the vehicle is from 10.3.2011 to 9.3.2012.  If the vehicle met with an accident, some damages has occurred in the vehicle in the month of March, 2011 and thereafter the vehicle if met with an accident on 12.11.2011, in that situation, both the occurrence are covered under the policy.  It has not been mentioned anywhere in the FSL Report that the damages in the vehicle are old one.  So, the apprehension of the insurance company is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

          We have perused the surveyor report C-2 dated 24.4.2012 submitted by Lt. Col. GPS Bagga and Associates, whereby the net liability was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,49,000/-. So, in our view, the complainant is only entitled to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor vide his report dated 24.4.2012 i.e. Rs.2,49,000/- from the respondent no.1 insurance company.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission, wherein it is held that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  Thus, taking into consideration the surveyor report dated 24.4.2012, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.2,49,000/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (JL Gupta Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat        DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  18.07.2016