Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/21/2019

Dharmender - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Madan Singh Verma

07 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                   RBT Case No.: - 21/26.08.2019.

                                                                   Complaint No.: - 115 of 2019.

Date of Institution: - 12.04.2019.

                                                                   Date of Decision: - 07.06.2024.

 

Dharmender Son of Sh. Rattan Singh, resident of village Rawaldhi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middleton Road, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal-700071, through its Director.
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Near Geeta Miketan, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                         …...Opposite Parties. 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

BEFORE: -   Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member   

 

Present: -    Shri Madan Singh Verma Advocate for complainant.

Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for Ops.

 

ORDER: -

 

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that his TATA Indigo Car bearing registration No. HR-20V-5459 was insured with the OPs vide policy No.426003311710000235 from 27.10.2017 to 26.10.2018. It was alleged that in the early morning of 26.01.2018 when the complainant was proceeded from his house to the house of his sister at village Hui, the car got down from road due to heavy fog and touched with the tree on the road side and caught fire and the vehicle totally burnt due to sudden fire.  The complainant called the fire brigade and police and Fire brigade reached the spot but till that time, the car was completely burnt. The complainant informed about the incident to the police and DDR No. 009 dated 26.01.2018 was got registered in P.S. Badhra. It was further averred that the complainant had lodged the claim with the OPs alongwith all the required documents, but the OPs failed in settling his claim despite repeated requests. It was further averred that a legal notice dated 4.8.2018 was got issued to the OPs, but to no effect.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he suffers mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs no. 1 & 2 had filed written statement stating that the complainant has got his car bearing registration no. HR-20V-5459 insured for one year w.e.f. 27.10.2017 to 26.10.2018.  It was submitted that the insured declared value of the car was Rs. 1,80,000/-. The intimation regarding the alleged incident was received by the OPs on 29.01.2018.  It is submitted that after receiving the intimation, the OPs deputed Shri Ved Parkash Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Valuer and Investigator to carry out the survey of the burnt vehicle.  He visited the spot on 29.01.2018 and submitted his detailed spot survey report dated 31.01.2018.  It is further alleged that the competent authority has deputed PD Aggarwal Associates to carry out the final survey, who submitted his report dated 14.02.2019 and assessed the net loss of the vehicle to Rs. 1,64,000/-.  It is submitted that after receiving the report of said Surveyor, the complainant submitted his claim form. The OPs had sent letter dated 23.04.2019 to clarify that accident took place on 26.01.2018 and intimation of spot survey was received on 29.01.2018, after delay of 4 days.  As per DDR complainant had dialed on 100 number of police and he advised to provide VT report, but complainant failed to clarify the same.  The reminders dated 30.05.2019 and 17.07.2019 were sent to the complainant, but the complainant did not respond. It is further averred that the competent authority after due application of mind and papers available on the file and taking into consideration that the complainant had failed in clarifying the queries of the company, the claim file was closed as no claim and intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 9.8.2019. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex CW1/A, and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed his evidence on 5.7.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on dated 13.9.2021.  The OP had tendered documents Ex. R1 to R8 in favour of its contentions.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the car in question of the complainant was duly insured with the OPs from 27.10.2017 to 26.10.2018.  During the currency of insurance cover the car of the complainant burnt on 26.01.2018 and fully damaged.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs but they did not pay the claim to the complainant despite repeated requests.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of their reply.  He submitted that car in question of the complainant was insured with OPs for IDV of Rs. 1,80,000/-.  After getting the intimation regarding the incident, the OP deputed the surveyor, who assessed his loss at Rs. 1,64,000/- vide his report dated 14.02.2019 Ex.R4.  The surveyor asked the complainant to submit the requisite documents (i.e. delay for spot survey and VT Report) but the complainant has failed to submit the same.  Thus the claim file of the complainant has been closed as no claim and the intimation was given to him vide letter dated 9.8.2019.

7.                The only plea of the OPs that there was delay of 4 days in intimating the OPs and not provided VT report, is not tenable, because it is well settled law that the insurance company cannot repudiate the genuine claim of the insured merely on the ground that there was a delay of few days in giving the intimation to them and further that not provided VT report cannot be held to be the valid reason for repudiating the genuine claim.  It appears that the insurance company was adamant to reject the claim of the complainant. They have not taken cognizance of Motor spot/ survey report (Ex.R3) dated 31.01.2018, where it was mentioned by the surveyor that the complainant informed the Fire Brigade and the Police about the mis-happening on the same day.  Ex. R4 Motor Claim Survey Report dated 14.02.2019 submitted by P.D. Aggarwal Associates deputed by the OPs, attached copies of the Police Report & DDR apart from other relevant documents. From the perusal of the DDR No. 009 dated 26.01.2018 Ex. C3, it is clear that the complainant has called police at 100 and Fire Brigade at 101 immediately after the accident. The complainant has also placed on record copy of Rapat Rojnamcha No. FSO/MCD/2018/011 dated 29.1.2018 prepared by Fire Station, Charkhi Dadri, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that they visited the spot on 26.1.2018.  From the perusal of above said report, it is also clear that the car has been completely burnt in that fire. Insurance Company vide their letters dated 17.07.2019 (Ex.R7) and 09.08.2019 (Ex.R8) had asked the complainant to provide VT report. It is ironical that one side you are admitting that DDR was there and 100 no. was called and the other hand you are asking for VT report. It is not justifiable and the same is only for the purpose of declining the claim.  As regards the reason for delay for spot survey, as the date of accident was 26.01.2018 and information was given for spot survey on 29.01.2018, the insurance company has failed to appreciate that accident took place on 26.01.2018 Friday, the Republic Day (National Holiday), next day was Saturday followed by Sunday on 28.01.2018. The next working day was 29.01.2018, when complainant informed the Insurance Company and spot survey was carried on that day. There is no justification for asking reason for delay, as apparently there was no delay as far as working days are concerned. Accordingly this delay was required to be ignored. It is admitted fact that the police and fire brigade were informed at once and they have visited the spot on the same day.  Moreover, strong observations made by the IRDA, while issuing above said circular dated 20.09.2011, which undisputedly binding on the Insurance Company, are generally altogether ignored by it, with a view to repudiate the most genuine claim of the complainant, by proceeding purely on a technical approach.  In our view, such a stand taken by Insurance Company would not be permissible in law.  It is also admitted fact that the insured vehicle was completely burnt in the accident in question.  The IDV was Rs.1,80,000/- M/s P. D. Aggarwal Associates insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor in its Motor Claim Survey Report dated 14.02.2019 (Ex.R4) has assessed the repairable loss for Rs.3,86,113.20/-. But keeping in view the IDV of Rs.1,80,000/- and reducing wreck value of Rs. 15,000/- and policy deductible amount of Rs.1000/- has assessed net liability (with R/C Cancellation) at Rs.1,64,000/-. In our view, complainant has no concern with the wreck value and total IDV value should be paid by the insurance company with interest, as it is a case of total loss. Moreover, the Insurance Companies deliberately with malafide intention does not settle the claim of its consumers in time and harassed them without any reason.  The Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation for the consumers and strict proof as required under the Indian Evidence Act does not required to be proved under the C. P. Act before the Consumer Commission. The documents submitted by complainant are sufficient to settle the claim of the complainant. So in our view, the complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental and physical harassment for deficiency in service & mal-trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company.

8.      Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs in rejecting the subject claim of the complainant is proved beyond any iota of doubt. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and directs the OPs as under: -

i)        To release amount of Rs.1,80,000/- i.e. the IDV value of the insured vehicle to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident of the complainant’s vehicle i.e. w.e.f. 26.01.2018 till its realization, subject to submission of subrogation letter, no dues certificate from the financer/loan account statement of insured vehicle, if any, alongwith Form 26, 27, 29 and 30(A) to the insurance company.

ii)       To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs.

iii)                     To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

9.                      The opposite parties shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of this, failing which the amount will attract interest @ 12% per annum, for the same period, till actual realization.  The copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per the rules. The Order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.