DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 350/2018

Shri Nikhlesh Jain

S/o Late Shri P.C. Jain

R/o 410, Gali No. 2

Ganesh Nagar – II

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092                                       ….Complainants

Vs.    

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Through its Regional Manager

10^th Floor, Core-I, Scope Minar

Laxmi Nagar District Centre

Delhi – 110 092                                                              …Opponent

Date of Institution in CDRF, New Delhi on: 29.12.2014

Complaint Transferred in CDRF, East on: 14.09.2018

Judgement Reserved on: 22.12.2020

Judgement Passed on: 22.01.2021

CORUM:

Shri Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President)

Shri Bariq Ahmad (Member)

Order By: Shri Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President)

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Nikhlesh Jain against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

            We have heard the arguments on the last date of hearing in which the complainant argued in person and for the OP, Mr. Kumar Alok argued the matter.  The case of the complainant is that the OP has not processed the claim of the complainant. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant is having his car number HR 51 AH 2291 for which the complainant is having an insurance policy   no. 3203 xxxx xxxx xxxx 5351 which was valid from 22.11.2013 to 21.11.2014.  On 26.11.2013, when the complainant was coming from Agra to Delhi in the same car, the car met with an accident with a tractor at Mathura Highway.  According to the complainant, he immediately informed to the Mathura office of the OP which informed the complainant to toe away the car to Delhi and report to the Delhi office and the Delhi office would appoint the surveyor for assessing the claim.  Thereafter, the complainant towed the car from the Mathura Highway to Delhi and he contacted the OP to process the claim.

3.         It is also a fact that the complainant has sent a written communication dated 26.11.2013 to the Mathura office of the OP which was duly received by the Mathura office.  On 07.12.2013, the complainant has also sent a letter to the Delhi office of the OP for appointment of the surveyor, but according to the complainant, no surveyor was appointed.  Thereafter, complainant got the vehicle repaired on his own.

4.         The OP in its reply has taken following grounds seeking dismissal of complaint:

1. The Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
2. This complaint is barred by limitation as the incident took place in the year 2013, but the consumer complaint was filed only in the year 2017.
3. The complainant did not inform the OP or the police after the alleged loss of the vehicle in question.
4. The intimation letter and the bills filed by the complaint are forged one.
5. Although the vehicle was damaged and by the severe accident, none of the occupants suffered any injury.
6. The complainant has concealed the material facts viz. the name of the driver, number of the passengers/occupants, the driving licence of the driver etc. 
7. The complainant got the vehicle repaired in an unauthorized workshop without getting the vehicle surveyed by the surveyor. 

5.         The complaint has filed its reply and has categorically denied all these averments of the OP.  The complaint has also stated that the vehicle was not completely destroyed, but damaged because of the accident which was duly communicated to the OP and fortunately none of the occupants of the vehicle were injured.

6.         Both the parties have also filed their respective evidences.  The OP has filed the copy of surveyor report with its evidence dated 10.10.2017.  At the very outset, we see that the surveyor report dated 30.11.2015 filed by the OP is with respect to some other claim of the complainant and is not related to the incident in hand.  The said investigation report is with respect to reported theft of certain articles from the same vehicle on the intervening night of 30.07.2014 and 01.08.2014.  However, the incident which is the subject matter of this complaint is the accident that occurred on 26.11.2013.  The copy of FIR filed alongwith the evidence of the OP is also with respect to the incident of 2014 and it has no connection with the incident of 2013 for which this particular complaint has been filed.  This is a serious misrepresentation of the fact by the officials of the OP namely M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., who has filed these documents alongwith the affidavit of evidence, dated 10.10.2017.

7.         We direct the OP to look into this matter and take appropriate action against the officials of the OP who has filed irrelevant documents before this Forum which are not at all related to the case in hand.

8.         On the issue of objections raised by the OP, from the records, we see that none of these objections of the OP are maintainable.  We would be dealing with each and every objection of the OP in the following paragraph. 

9.         The first objection of the OP is that the Form does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  It is noted that this complaint was initially filed as CC no. 975 of 2014 before CDRF-VIII       (I.P. Estate, New Delhi) and vide order dated 14.09.2018 in TC-46 of 2018, Hon’ble State Commission has transferred this complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the earlier Forum to this Forum.  Since, this matter has been transferred by Hon’ble State Commission to this Forum, the objection of the OP that the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction does not survive. 

10.       The second objection of the OP that this complaint has been filed at belated stage also does not survive because this complaint was filed within the limitation period in the year 2014 itself and not in the year 2017, as alleged by the OP.  It is not clear that how the OP came to the conclusion that this matter was filed in the year 207 despite the fact that the initial registration number of this complaint is 2014. 

11.       The next objection that the complainant did not communicate to the police or the insurance company is not correct.  In case of an accident, the intimation to the police is not necessary for the purpose of lodging a claim.  The policy Terms and Conditions also does not necessitate the communication to the police in case of accidental claim.  Merely, communication to the OP is necessary for lodging the claim of the complainant.  The complainant has already filed the communication dated 26.11.2013, so received by the Mathura office of the OP.  Although, the OP has alleged that this communication is forged, the OP has not brought on any documents on record to show that how this communication is forged.  The OP has also not communicated to this Forum that why appropriate police action was not initiated against the complainant once this alleged forged document came into the knowledge of the OP.  Merely, allegation of the fraud is not sufficient and the OP has to give appropriate reasons to show how a particular document is forged.

12.       The next objection of the OP is that the intimation letter is a forged document.  We have already dealt with the issue in the previous paragraph.  On the issue of fraudulent bills, again the OP has not indicated how these bills are forged or fraudulent.  It is a fact that the OP has not appointed any surveyor in the case in hand, therefore the documents filed by the complainant could not be examined by the surveyor at all.  It is also a fact that these bill in original were in possession of the complainant which have been handed over to the OP in accordance with our order dated 27.02.2019.  Ld. Counsel for the OP has also confirmed that now the bills have been received by him in accordance with the above order.  For the records, total claim of complainant from the OP for the repair work is        Rs. 1,76,817/- for which he has already handed over the original bills to OP.  In view of the fact that no surveyor was appointed and there was no occasion to the OP to examine the authenticity of these bills, the allegation of the forgery of these bills at the stage of filing the reply and evidence before this Forum cannot be accepted.  Hence, the said allegation of the OP is also rejected.

13.       The next allegation of the OP with respect to the fact that none of the occupants of the vehicle suffered any injury cannot be the subject matter of this complaint, in view of the fact that there was no total loss of the vehicle, but the loss to the vehicle was only on the structure and the outer body.

14.       The next objection that the complaint has concealed the material facts about the driver and occupants of the vehicle can also not be examined as the details of the driver, his driving licence, the occupants etc. are required to be examined by the surveyor, as appointed by the OP.  As there was no surveyor appointed in the case in hand, there was no occasion for the complainant to submit all these documents.  All these documents are not required to be submitted before this Forum as the case of the complainant is that the OP has not appointed any surveyor and has also not processed the claim of the complainant.  We are examining only this short issue and not going into the decision taken by the OP.

15.       The next objection is that the vehicle was repaired at an unauthorized workshop.  This issue can also not be examined by us as the same is required to be examined by the surveyor and not by this Forum.        Hence, all the objections raised by the OP are rejected.

16.       From the records, we see that the complainant has duly intimated about the accident to the OP.  However, the OP has neither appointed the surveyor nor has acted upon the said intimation.  Hence, we hold the OP liable to compensate the complainant.  It is also a fact that the bills in original has already been handed over to the OP in accordance with the order passed by this Forum.  Hence, based on the pleadings of the parties and also in accordance with the provisions of law, we pass following order:-

1. OP is directed to pay a sum of s. 1,76,817/- (total claim value) to the complainant with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of communication about the accident to the Mathura office i.e. 26.11.2013.
2. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation as well as litigation cost to the complainant.
3. For filing irrelevant documents before this Forum, the OP is also directed to pay the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. 

All these payments are to be made within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the OP shall be liable to pay an interest @12% p.a. on the entire amount payable on the expiry of the 4 weeks period.

With the above directions, the above complaint is disposed of.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and also be uploaded on website..

            File be consigned to Record Room.

(BARIQ AHMAD)                                                    (DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR)

       Member                                                                            President