Punjab

Sangrur

CC/487/2017

Gurmukh Singh Tiwana - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mohd.Izhar

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    487

                                                Instituted on:      22.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       08.01.2018

 

Gurmukh Singh Tiwana (Advocate) S/O Tara Singh, resident of Defence Colony, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     National Insurance Company Ltd. Pili Kothi, Thandi Sadak, The Mall, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager. (Notice not issued being not  a necessary party).

2.     National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office 1, Atam Park, Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager.

3.     National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-1, SCO 332-334, Sec. 34-, Chandigarh through its Regional Manger.

4.     Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. VPO Jugiana, Main GT Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana through its Manager. (Given up by the complainant on 8.11.2017)

5.     Renault India Pvt. Ltd. ASV Ramana Towers, # 37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T Nagar, Chennai-600017 through its MD. (Notice not issued being not  a necessary party).

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

For OPs 2 &o 3         :       Shri Harpreet Singla, Adv.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurmukh Singh Tiwana, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured her Renault car bearing registration number PB-13-AE-7231 for the period from 27.02.2016 to 26.02.2017  by paying the requisite premium vide insurance policy number GY31 401410894811. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, in the month of November, 2016 the car of the complainant met with an accident near Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla District
Sangrur and damaged badly. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant immediately intimated the OPs regarding the accident and the vehicle was brought to the repairer and thereafter the insurance company appointed the surveyor, who prepared the survey report after checking the damaged vehicle.  The grievance of the compliant is that the OPs paid only an amount of Rs.57,375/-, whereas he suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.1,22,368/-.  Though the complainant approached the OPs for payment of the remaining amount of Rs.64,993/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.64,993/-  along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident  till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the complaint was not admitted against opposite parties number 1 and 5, as such no notice was issued to them.  The OP number 4 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 8.11.2017.

 

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops number 2 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits,  it has been admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops.  It is also admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident and after receipt of intimation, the Ops appointed Shri Charanjit Singh, surveyor and loss assessor from Ludhiana, who visited at the workshop and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.76,500/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy by deducting depreciation salvage and excess etc. It is further averred that the complainant has violated the policy condition number 1 as there was a delay of about one month in intimation to the OP by the insured, as a result of which the claim of the complainant was settled on non standard basis to the tune of Rs.57,375/-, which amount has already been paid to the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 and  3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&33/9 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AE-7231 from the OP number 2 for the period from 27.02.2016 to 26.02.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.10171/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-2 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 6.10.2016 near village Amargarh in District Sangrur and suffered loss as such, the complainant gave intimation to the Ops about the accident of the vehicle, as such, the OPs appointed Shri Charanjit Singh, surveyor and loss assessor, who visited the repairer i.e. Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana for inspection of the vehicle and submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.76,500/-, but the OPs number 2 and 3 paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.57,375/- only. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops number 2 and  3 is that the complainant gave intimation to the OPs after a long delay, as such the claim of the complainant was settled on non standard basis, and the amount of Rs.57,375/- has already been paid to the complainant. We have perused the whole record case file but failed to find out any delay in intimation of the claim to the OPs. It is on record that the OPs have already settled the claim on non standard basis, whereas the OPs were liable to pay the full claim amount to the tune of Rs.76,500/-, as is evident from the copy of the survey report on record as Ex.2&3/2 and nothing more is to be paid to the complainant as the survey report is an important document. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.76500/- minus Rs.57375/- i.e. Rs.19,125/- as per the survey report on record.

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,125/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.09.2017 till realisation.   We further direct the Ops number  2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 8, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member