Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/67/2021

Mr. Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Manveer Mehla

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

Complaint Case No.67 of 2021.

 Date of Institution: 02.04.2021.

Date of Order:         15.10.2024

 

Mr. Karan Singh S/o Sh. Indraj Singh, R/o Village Dhani Phogat, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

…Complainant

 

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Having its office at S.C.O 155-156, 1^st Floor, Near Telephone Exchange Hisar-125001 through its Manager/Incharge.

 

…Opposite party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,

 BEFORE:      Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

PRESENT:          Sh. Manveer Mehla, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Chahar, counsel for the opposite party.

 

ORDER:

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR 61C 3411, which was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 420300/31/16/6300001521 for the period from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2017.
2. It was submitted that on dated 03.05.2017, the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and got totally damaged and FIR No. 189 dated 03.05.2017 was lodged at P.S.Dadri. It was further submitted that the complainant informed the opposite party on the very same day.  The complainant sent his truck to agency and outside workers for the buildup  and he paid  an amount of Rs. 4,63,723/- on the buildup and an amount of Rs. 3500/- for crane services. The complainant completed all the formalities and submitted the required documents to the opposite party. It was further submitted that the complainant requested the opposite party to pass the claim amount of the said vehicle but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further averred that the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party through his counsel on 15.12.2020 which was duly served to the opposite party but the opposite party did not reply the same. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party which appeared and filed reply. On merits, it has been submitted by the opposite party that the abovesaid vehicle was intentionally /willfully used to cause death of three persons instantaneously and damage to other property as mentioned in the FIR No. 0189 dt. 03.05.2017 lodged P.S.Sadar, Dadri and this amounts to violation of condition of policy, according to policy condition no.5 which states that “the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintained it in efficient condition and in the event of any accident or break down the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage  or loss and if, the vehicle insured be driven shall be entirely at the insured own risk.”.
4. However, it is averred that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Jitender Kumar Sethi, has assessed the loss for Rs. 70,197/- dt. 18.01.2018. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OP and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
5. To prove his case, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex. CW1/A and documents i.e. Ex. CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7 and evidence of complainant was closed vide order dt. 06.07.2022.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed the same vide order dt.20.07.2023
7. Learned counsel for the complainant raised the contention that from the evidence on record it was proved that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR 61C 3411, which was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 420300/31/16/6300001521 for the period from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2017. On 03.05.2017, the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and got totally damaged and FIR No. 189 dated 03.05.2017 was lodged at P.S.Dadri.. It was further argued that the complainant informed the opposite party on the very same day and lodged his claim. The complainant completed all the formalities  and submitted the required documents to the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant got repaired his truck from Workshop. The complainant paid Rs. 4,63,723/- plus Rs. 3500/- (crane service) as other expenses from his own pocket and the complainant submitted the bills alongwith original documents to the opposite party. It was further argued that the complainant requested the opposite party to pass the claim amount of the said vehicle but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further argued that the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party through his counsel on 15.12.2020 which was duly served to the opposite party but the opposite party did not reply the same. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party raised the contention that the complainant had failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the terms and conditions of policy of insurance. It is averred that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Jitender Kumar Sethi has assessed the loss for Rs. 70,197/- dt. 18.01.2018.. It was further argued that the complaint being  meritless was liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record thoroughly and carefully.

 

 

10.           In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the opposite party has wrongly failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the complainant on the repair of the insured vehicle on flimsy grounds that the complainant has failed to submit the required documents/details. In this case, Sh. Rajender Sharma, Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Sh. Jitender Sethi, Surveyors & Loss Assessor have filed their respective affidavits as Ex. RW1/A, Ex.RW-2/A  to support the case of the opposite party. The averments made in the complaint have been supported by the affidavit of the complainant, Ex. CW1/A, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and specifically deposed that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 03.05.2017 and got damaged. He reported the matter to the police and also informed the insurer. He had supplied all the required documents for passing the claim. He sent legal notice to the opposite party but the claim was not settled. From the evidence of the complainant, it is proved on record that the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident. He had completed all the formalities of the documents required by the opposite party. During the course of argument, it was not disputed that the accident had taken place during the subsistence of the insurance policy. There is nothing on record that the complainant intentionally had contributed towards the cause of the accident. More so, all the documents required for the finalization of the claim filed by the complainant are on the record of this case. The complainant specifically deposed by way of affidavit Ex.CW-1/A that he had spent Rs.4,63,723/- on the repair of the insured vehicle and Rs.3500/- for crane services. More so the complainant has produced on record the bills Ex.CW-1/4 (colly) P1 to P13 regarding the amounts spent by the complainant on the repair of the vehicle. In this case claim has been declined on the ground of violation of policy condition. Nevertheless, the claim deserves merit for Rs.93,017/- being tax invoice raised by Haryana Motors vide invoice No.IHAMJA1718000437 dt.16.8.2017. The other expenses incurred without proper invoices are not admissible. The surveyor and Loss Assessor  has also assessed  loss for Rs.70,197.70/- as per report dt.18.01.2018 (Ex.R4). Hence, complaint is allowed partly. We therefore, direct the OP as under:-

1. To pay Rs.93,017/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of tax invoice  i.e.16.08.2017 till final realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment et.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4.  

11.           If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance