Haryana

Karnal

813/2011

Amandeep Singh S/o Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajiv Gupta

13 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.813 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.22.11.2011

                                                          Date of decision: 6.04.2015

 

Amandeep Singh son of Shri Hardeep Singh resident of House No.4160, Gali No.7, Shiv Colony, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainants.

                   Vs.

 

National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, GT Road, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-      Sh.Rajiv Gupta  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Vohra  Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed thepresent complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that  the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-05-AC-Swift Model 2010 and the same was insured from the OP vide insurance policy No. 120621223  valid w.e.f. 20.12.2010 to 19.12.2011 and the ID value was Rs.5,03,222/-.  It has been further averred that on 19.4.2011 the said vehicle met with an accident  while the said vehicle was coming from Kertu District Muzaffarnagar . The vehicle was extensively damaged.  The matter was reported to the OP  and nobody from the third party suffered injury and as such the matter was not reported to the police.  The OP appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and the vehicle was found beyond repairs. The complainant submitted all the documents with the OP but the claim of the complainant was not paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in services and has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.

2.                On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the complaint is pre mature one.

                   On merits that claim has rightly been repudiated because keeping in view the damages of the car it was highly unbelievable that a person who was driving the car had not suffered injuries and as such prima facie it seems that the car was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence and later on Hardeep Singh father of the complainant/insured has been projected as driver of the said vehicle by producing a valid driving licence of Hardeep Singh and thus the claim has rightly been  repudiated.  The Divisional Manager of the OP has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement alongwith some other documents which would be discussed at the relevant stages.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the allegations that the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-05-AC-Swift Model 2010 and the same was insured from the OP vide insurance policy No. 120621223  valid w.e.f. 20.12.2010 to 19.12.2011 and the ID value was Rs.5,03,222/-.  It has been further averred that on 19.4.2011 the said vehicle met with an accident  while the said vehicle was coming from Kertu District Muzaffarnagar . The vehicle was extensively damaged.  The matter was reported to the OP  and nobody from the third party suffered injury and as such the matter was not reported to the police.  The OP appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and the vehicle was found beyond repairs. The complainant submitted all the documents with the OP but the claim of the complainant was not paid.

 

5.                However, as per the contention of the OP claim has rightly been repudiated because keeping in view the damages of the car it was highly unbelievable that a person who was driving the car had not suffered injuries and as such prima facie it seems that the car was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence and later on Hardeep Singh father of the complainant/insured has been projected as driver of the said vehicle by producing a valid driving licence Ex.C22 of Hardeep Singh and thus the claim has rightly been  repudiated.

 

 

6.                 However, repudiation of claim is not sustainable in the eyes of law  because if Hardeep Singh who has projected himself as a driver of the car at the time of accident had  not received any injury, then it  cannot be presumed that he was not driving the car at the time of accident. The OP has also investigated the matter but there is nothing on the file in order to infer that the said car at the time of  accident was being driven by any other person other than Hardeep Singh who is none but the father of the complainant. Said Hardeep Singh was holding a valid driving licence   Ex.C22. Therefore, after going through the report Ex.C3 and photographs Ex.C4 to Ex.C19,  loss has been accessed to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-. At the same time the OP has also appointed surveyor who has submitted his report Ex.O4 wherein the net assessment of loss has been mentioned as Rs.2,47,772/- after deducting the salvage value . The OP has also attached the consent letter of complainant Ex.O5 wherein the assured has  agreed to get the  exact sum of Rs.2,47,722/- as full and final settlement after deducting  cost of salvage  and as such the complainant is entitled to receive the amount  of Rs. 2,47,722/- from the OP.

 

7.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.2, 47,722/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.  22.11.2011 till its actual  realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum  of Rs.25,000/- for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of  this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 6.04.2015                                                                             

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member

 

         

 

 

Present:-      Sh.Rajiv Gupta  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Vohra  Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 6.04.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member