Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1067/2011

Jarnail Singh S/o Sant Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company. - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

05 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                       Complaint No. 1067  of 2011.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 13.11.2011

                                                                                       Date of decision:  05.09.2016

         Jarnail Singh aged about 31 years son of Sant Ram, resident of village Dhaurang, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. National Insurance Company, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Branch Manager.
2. Eakansh Wheels, authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer Village Tepla, State Highway No.5, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Prop./Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Respondents

BEFORE:  SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                  SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER        

 

Present: None for complainant.    

              Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Sh. Rahul Singla, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 

           

ORDER

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2                      Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that a Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-02T-6090 owned by the complainant which was insured with respondent No. (hereinafter referred as Op No.1 Insurance Company) vide cover note No. 4083489 valid from 23.04.2008 to 22.04.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,957/- met with an accident with motorcycle on 31.03.2009 near village Haveli, Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar when the complainant was going towards Mata Trilokpur side Yamuna Nagar. An FIR bearing No. 52 dated 01.04.2009 was registered against the complainant under section 279/337/338 IPC at P.S. Sadhaura and the car of the complainant as well as said motorcycle was taken into custody by the police. The original Registration Certificate of the car as well as Driving License of the complainant were also taken into possession by the police of P.S. Sadhaura. After getting the car in question on Superdari from the court, the complainant got it repaired on the direction of Op No.1 i.e. National Insurance Company  from the Op No.2 authorized service station of the Maruti Suzuki and spent near about Rs. 28501/-. After that complainant submitted all the documents with OP No.1. However, OP No.2 asked the complainant for RC of the said vehicle and driving license of the complainant vide letter dated 15.09.2009 but the said documents were in the court in criminal case file, so complainant could not hand over to OP No.1 at that time and this fact was in full knowledge of the Ops. After that, the criminal case was decided on 12.07.2011 and the complainant approached the Op No.1 and requested to release the claim amount but the OP No.1 flatly refused. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP No.1 Insurance Company to make the payment of expenses incurred by the complainant on the repairs of his car to the tune of Rs. 28,501/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 National Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” and the complainant was duly informed vide registered letter dated 24.09.2009 because the complainant failed to comply with the letters of the OP Insurance Company dated 07.08.2009, 28.08.2009, 15.09.2009 and 24.09.2009. However, it has been admitted that complainant had purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 4083489 from the OP No.1 Insurance Company valid from 23.04.2008 to 22.04.2009 in respect of Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-02T-6090 and further it has also been admitted that on receiving the intimation regarding the accident of vehicle in question, the OP Insurance Company immediately deputed Mr. Vikas Kohli Mechanical Engineer for survey of loss caused to the car in question, who submitted his report dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure R-6) and assessed the loss of Rs. 24441/-. However, complainant was repeatedly requested through registered letters to supply the requisite documents to process the claim but the complainant has miserably failed. Hence, the claim file of the complainant was closed as “no claim” and on merit controverted the pleading taken in the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the Forum at Ambala has got alone jurisdiction in matter of any dispute arises with Op No.2; complaint is barred by limitation; no allegation has been made by the complainant against OP No.2 in the complaint, so the complaint against Op No.2 is not maintainable being frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.2.

5.                Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence evidence of complainant was closed by court order dated 31.03.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint, the complainant filed short affidavit alongwith documents such as photo copy of insurance cover note as Annexure-1, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure-2, Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure-3, copy of invoice/cash memo as Annexure-4 to Annexure-6, copy of letter dated 15.09.2009 as Annexure-7 in support of his complaint.

6.                  On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Arora, Administrative Office, National Insurance Company as Annexure RW1/A, Affidavit of Vikas Kohli Mechanical Engineer, as Annexure RW1/B and documents as Annexure R1/1 to R1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                   OP No.2 failed to adduce any evidence, hence evidence of Op No.2 was closed by court order dated 15.07.2016.

8.                  We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                It is not disputed that during the currency of insurance policy (Annexure R1/5) the car of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-02T-6090 (Annexure-3) insured with Op No.1 met with an accident on 31.03.2009 near village Haveli, P.S. Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar and FIR No. 52 dated 01.04.2009 was registered in police station, Sadhaura. It is also not disputed that a surveyor and loss assessor Mr. Vikas Kohli was deputed by the Op Insurance Company who submitted his report dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure R1/6) and assessed an amount of Rs. 24441/-.  The only plea of the OP Insurance Company is that complainant was asked to submit the original RC, Salvage, Bank Account Number and Discharge Voucher vide various letters Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 but the complainant totally failed to submit the same, so, the claim of the complainant was rightly closed as “No Claim”.

10                    After going through the contents of these letters, it is duly evident that OPs Insurance Company asked the complainant to submit the discharge voucher as well as his bank account number meaning thereby that there was no other violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and insurance company was ready to pay the amount assessed by the Surveyor-Cum-Loss Assessor. However, as the complainant could not submit copy of RC and DL as these documents were lying in the criminal case file, so, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as “No Claim” by the OP Insurance Company which is totally illegal against the principal of natural justice as these documents can be verified by the investigator/surveyor from the concerned criminal file but nothing was done by the OP Insurance Company in this respect and repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground.

11                    Although the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 28501/- in his complaint on account of repair of his car but the surveyor and loss assessor has recommended an amount of Rs. 24,441/- on repair basis. As the complainant has failed to point out any discrepancy or ambiguity in the said report and it is settled proposition of the law that credence should be given to the surveyor report. As such, we deem it proper and appropriate to grant assessed amount of Rs. 24,441/- on account of damages to the said car and the OP No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 24,441/-. Repudiating the genuine claim is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

12                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 to pay the assessed amount of Rs. 24,441/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Complaint qua Op No.2 is hereby dismissed being no deficiency in service proves against Op No.2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 05.09.2016.

 

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER