Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                Complaint No. : 326.

                                                Instituted on     : 01.06.2017.

                                                Decided on       : 03.12.2018.

Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Baljeet Singh, Resident of Village Lowa Kalan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Narain Shopping Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Ms. Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. RK Behl, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of truck No.HR-63C-9648 and the same was insured with the respondent for a period from 04.11.2015 to 03.11.2016 vide policy No. 421600/31/15/6300003348 against an insured amount of Rs. 28,00,000/-. The said truck of the complainant met with an accident on dated 12.05.2016 in Gujrat State and was damaged badly. The complainant informed the respondent officials regarding the damages in                    the truck. After receiving the information, the respondent officials appointed a surveyor, who duly inspected the vehicle in question. The complainant submitted all the relevant and required documents/particulars including cash memo with the respondents. After receiving the document, the respondent officials assured the complainant that the claim amount will be paid to him within a month. The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of repair of his truck and toing charges. As per complainant, the respondent did not pay the claim amount of the damaged vehicle and avoid the matter from one pretext to another. The complainant further submitted that the act of respondent for not disbursing the amount of compensation to the complainant is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the law and principle of natural justice and the act of the respondent amounts the deficiency in service. The complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel on dated 01.04.2017. As such the complainant prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual realization and also demanded an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of special penalty and litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that insured has not submitted the original DL details, FIR etc. Finally the respondent insurance company has closed the file as no claim. As per policy terms and condition, DL and its authenticity is necessary for settlement of the case. It is further denied that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been incurred by the complainant in the repair of the damaged vehicle. The respondent officials deputed Sh. Daya Ram Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss in the vehicle in question and as per the report, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,20,698/- (less salvage value of Rs. 1500/-). He further submitted that the insured has not submitted the original driving licence and its detailed with the insurance company. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the respondent, complaint is premature and prayed that complaint filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.08.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 05.09.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully and came into conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not paid by the respondent officials on the ground that some document has not been supplied by the complainant to the respondent officials. A perusal of the letter dated 03.04.2017 which is Ex.C6 itself shows that the respondent officials demanded a copy of FIR and a copy of licence for the verification from the complainant. The complainant replied on dated 11.05.2017 and submitted that no FIR has been registered regarding the accident so he is unable to provide the same. The reply of the complainant is Ex.C7.

5.                After perusal of the documents placed on record by the respondent officials itself shows that Sh. Daya Ram Gupta assessed the loss and prepared a motor final and re-inspection survey report on dated 01.10.2016. The perusal of the report itself shows that the particulars of the driving licence of the driver namely Mr. Javed son of Sh. Usmaan are mentioned in the survey report. In the column No. 5 of this report all the relevant details are mentioned by the surveyor and it has also been mentioned that the licence of driver was renewed on dated 26.10.2015 upto 25.10.2018. As per the complainant, the accident took place on dated 12.05.2016 at about 04.00 a.m. Moreover, in the Ex.R1 it has been specifically mentioned in column No. 8 that no report has been given      in the police station regarding the accident. After receiving the report on dated 01.10.2016 respondent insurance company issued a letter dated 03.04.2017 to the complainant for demanding the copy of FIR and copy of licence of the driver. After perusal of the all the documents placed on record by the complainant and respondent we come into conclusion that the respondent insurance company arbitrarily and illegally not paid the claim of the complainant because the complainant has already informed the respondent that no FIR has been lodged regarding the accident and all the relevant particular of the licence was within the possession of respondent officials. The act of opposite party of not paying the genuine claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.     

6                           The bare perusal of the survey report itself shows that the complainant has spent an amount of Rs. 1,20,698/- on account of repair of the vehicle. Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount. As such we hereby allow the complaint and it is directed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.1,20,698/-/ (Rs. One lakh twenty thousand six hundred ninety eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.01.06.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.12.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.