Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 468.
Instituted on : 19.10.2020
Decided on : 22.12.2023
Amit Kajal s/o Sh. Satyawan, age 47 years, r/o H.No.26/209, Subhas Nagar Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., Narain Shopping Complex, Civil Road RohtakThroughGeneral Manager.
- Jagmohan Motors, Sonepat Road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.ParveenPhogat Advocate for complainant.
Dr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Hitesh Kaushik, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is owner of a Maruti car bearing registration no.HR-12AC-0348 which was insured by the opposite party No.1 vide cashless policy no.42160031191144322670 for the period 23.10.2019 to 22.10.2020. The vehicle was purchased from opposite party no.2 and the insurance was also done through opposite party No.2. The said vehicle was got damaged by another vehicle at Jhajjar Road, near Kanheli Flyover, Rohtak on 31.10.2019 and at that time the vehicle was being driven by the complainant who is having valid license to drive on the date of damage. The matter was reported to the opposite party no.2 on dated 01.11.2019 and all the documents were provided to opposite party No.2 who assured that opposite party no.2 will do all the formalities/documentation with opposite party no.1. The car was got repaired vide job card no.JC19002348 dated 01.11.2019 but the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that opposite party no.1 has rejected the claim and will not pay the repair charges, hence the complainant had to pay from his own pocket. The complainant was facing the problem without car so he paid the amount of Rs.44129/- to the opposite party no.2 and took the delivery of the vehicle. The act of opposite party of repudiating the claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to pay the bill amount Rs.44129/- alongwith interest, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.100000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that on receiving the information regarding the accident of insured, vehicle, the opposite party appointed surveyor Sh. Daya Ram Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor who conducted the survey and submitted his report dated 01.02.2020 and documents i.e. R.C. and D.L. of the insured vehicle also got verified by Sh. Sunil Kumar Kataria who submitted his reportdated 05.11.2019. As per the recommendation of the surveyor, it is mentioned in the survey report that recommended to settle the loss on repair basis for Rs.42718/- as full and final payment subject to deposit of Police Report/Razinama, details of T.P.vehicle, T.P. affidavit and all other necessary documents required and fulfilment of all other, terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Then after considering all the aspect of the claim including cause of accident, report of surveyor, verification reports etc. Thereafter for completion of the documentation formalities as mentioned in the survey report and same were required for further process of claim file, the opposite party send letters dated 05.12.2020, 10.02.2020 and 20.02.2020 to the insured for providing cancelled cheque for processing of the claim but no reply was given by the insured/complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured is liable to submit the required documents for settlement of the claim. The opposite party closed theclaim file as No Claim because of no reply from the insured/complainant and this is a negligence on the part of complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rejected by insurance company and in these circumstances the respondent no.2 has a legal right to get the amount of repairing charges from the complainant and this fact has been clearly told to the complainant. The respondent no.2 has properly repaired the vehicle of complainant on time and the insurance claim was to be decided by respondent no.1. The complainant is bound to make the payment of repairing charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 01.12.2021. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex.R1to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on 17.03.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A and closed his evidence on 03.08.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. At the time of arguments, readable copy of insurance has been placed on record as ‘Annexure JNA’. As per written statement filed by the opposite party No.1it has been submitted that the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the insurance company. So the claim cannot be processed further. As per respondent they issued 3 letters Ex.R3 to Ex.R5 but no registered post receipt has been placed on record to prove that these letters were served to the complainant. . Moreover we have minutely perused the survey report, which has been placed on record as Ex.R1. In this report the surveyor has recommended to settle the loss on repair basis as Rs.42718/- as full and final payment subjected to deposit of police report/razinama, details of third party vehicle, third party affidavit and other necessary documents. We have minutely perused the survey report. The surveyor itself mentioned at page no.2 that no FIR has been lodged regarding this accident and no third party loss or injury was reported by the insured. When the insured himself stated before the surveyor that FIR was not lodged in the present accident or no 3rd party loss or injury was there in the alleged accident, then why the surveyor recommended the claim for payment subject to the deposit of some documents i.e. detail of third party vehicle, third party affidavit. It is not possible to submit these details with the insurance company by the complainant. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party no.1 is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.42718/-(Rupees forty two thousand seven hundred and eighteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.10.2020 to till its realization and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account 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:
22.12.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
