DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.115/13

 Shri Ram Singh S/o Shri Gurnam Singh

R/o 6/185-186, DDA Flats, Kalkaji

New Delhi-110019.                                             …Complainant

                                                VERSUS

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

E-13, Hauz Khas Market

New Delhi-110016                                              …Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution  :18.03.2013                           

 Date of Order         :07.10.2022 

Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi

          Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to pay alongwith interest @ 18% per annum (ii) to pay as compensation against mental agony/pain etc. and to allow litigation cost of Rs.21,000/- etc. No specific amount at (i) (ii) was given by the complainant.

          Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The complainant is owner of vehicle bearing No. DL 14B-7655 make TATA Indica Vista.  The complainant also purchased insurance Policy No. 360902/31/12/63-3313 which was effective from 27.08.2012 to 26.08.2013. He maintained that he was given a single page of policy document without any terms & conditions.  The same is enclosed herewith as annexure C-1 (colly). During this currency of insurance policy period, the said vehicle met an accident: The OP was intimated about the accident.  Accordingly, the OP appointed surveyor to inspect the vehicle.  The surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle. Therefore, the complainant got his vehicle repaired.  A total bill of Rs. 46,795/- was raised for said repair by M/s Autolink Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. The said bill was submitted to the OP company.  Rather, instead of payment, the complainant received a letter dated 10.10.2012, demanding copy of FIR/claim.  The complainant raised his contention that there is no requirement of lodging of FIR in this case. No where in the said policy, it is not mentioned that in case of accident; the lodging of FIR is necessary.  Despite service of legal notice upon the OP, no response was received.  Hence deficiency of service on the part of OP. 

          OP, on the other hand, submitted its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections.  The complainant lodged his claim for an accident occurred on 29.08.2012.  The complainant did not complete mandatory requirement. On receipt of claim-form, the OP appointed, surveyor Mukesh Mehndiratta who inspected the vehicle at workshop and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,000/-.  The copy of report is annexed as annexure-A1(colly).  The OP requested vide its letter dated 08.11.2012 to provide the copy of FIR for the accident of vehicle on 26.03.2013. The final letter was sent to the complainant for providing the same.  The non-submission of the copy of FIR establishes this fault that there was no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OP.

Further, the OP company submitted the reply that since no FIR was lodged, hence, the complainant was trying to repair his vehicle at the cost of OP.  The OP company vehemently denied the contentions/allegations of the complainant unless specifically admitted in its reply.  There is no liability on the part of OP.

Both the parties have filed evidences–in–affidavit and written submissions.  Written statement is on record so is rejoinder.  Oral arguments were heard and concluded.

          This Commission has gone into the material placed on record. Due consideration was given to the arguments. The OP company in its reply accepted this fact that there is no denial of claim as assessed by the surveyor but for submission of copy of FIR.  In the absence of non-completion of the documents, the claim could not be processed.  It would be prudent if we glance over the survey report – “This survey – report is issued without prejudice in respect of cause, nature and extent of loss/ damage and subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy:.  The surveyor has mentioned the details of the accident and cause of accident.  The surveyor also assessed the estimates of Rs.14,000/- for repair of the damaged vehicle.  The report itself shows that the vehicle was got damaged and it was inspected minutely.  After having examined and detailed discussions, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,000/-.  As mentioned above, the OP does not have any objection for release of this amount of Rs.14,000/- but for completion of documents.  As pointed out; the complainant did not lodge the FIR for accident of vehicle.  The complainant has maintained that there is no requirement of the same, as vehicle got accident in Delhi. It is also noticed that the surveyor has not denied specifically about the occurrence of accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases held that the claim for the insurance policy should not be withheld on the basis of non-completion of such formalities which are not fundamental to the policy.  The occurrence of accident such as non-lodging of FIR to this effect can be ascertained by corroborating evidences.  Such claim can be passed on the basis of non-standard. 

In nutshell, after going through narrations made above and material placed before us, this Commission directs OP to pay the 75% of assessed value of damage as assessed by surveyor on non-standard basis i.e. Rs.10,500/- within 3 months from the receipt of this order along with 6% per annum from the date of institution of case in this Commission failing which the interest shall be levied @ 9% per annum till its realisation.            

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.