DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Kulbinder Singh s/o Sh. Mewa Singh r/o House No.1117/14, Gobindpura, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

New India Assurance Co., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. through its Manager-Claim Hub.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Aalok Jagga, Adv. for the complainant

                        Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Kulbinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against the opposite party  :-

i)                   to release the claim of Rs.1,16,056/- with interest @ 18%.

ii)                to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards cost for harassment, mental agony etc.

iii)              to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2009, he purchased a used Toyota Innova car bearing registration No.HR 03G 5550 from one Sh. Paramjeet Singh.  The said seller had got the car insured from the opposite party for the period 12.8.2009 to 11.8.2010.  Later on the complainant got the registration as well as the insurance of the said car transferred in his name.

                   It has further been pleaded by the complainant that on 6.1.2010, the car met with an accident at Saha-Dusharka road and was damaged.  The car was brought to Chandigarh on 7.1.2010 and the matter was also reported to the opposite party. At the behest of the opposite party, the car was taken to the premises of Radiant Auto, Panchkula for repairs.  On the same day, Sh. M.M.L Dhammi, surveyor of the opposite party visited the premises of Radiant Auto and inspected the vehicle.  On the advice of the surveyor, the car was got repaired by the complainant and the repairer raised a bill of Rs.1,16,056/-. The complainant took possession of the said car from M/s Radiant Auto in the month of January 2010 after making payment of the bill.

                   According to the complainant, thereafter he visited the office of the opposite party for settlement of the claim a number of times and also wrote a number of letters but to no effect.  Ultimately vide letter dated 8.11.2010 (Ex.C-8) the claim was repudiated by the opposite party on whimsical and false grounds. 

                   In these circumstances, according to the complainant, the repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In the written statement it has been admitted that the car in question was insured with the opposite party for the period in question.  However, according to the opposite party, the complainant has concealed material facts which came to light at the time of investigation of the claim.  According to the opposite party, it appointed M/s Royal Associates as investigator who investigated the matter and visited the house of one Raghubir Singh at whose address the vehicle in question was registered.  The said Raghubir Singh told the investigator that no accident took place on 6.1.2010 and in fact the car met with an accident in the month of December 2009 in Rajasthan. He also disclosed that the car was being plied for commercial purposes. It has further been pleaded that there is discrepancy in the statements of the complainant and his brother Jarnail Singh regarding the manner of accident and about the presence of persons at the spot at the time of accident.  It has also been pleaded that the complainant failed to intimate the police about the accident in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the opposite party, in view of the discrepancies and facts mentioned above, the investigator found that the claim is not genuine.  Thus, according to the opposite party, the repudiation of the claim is in accordance with law and is based on the report of the investigator. 

                   In these circumstances, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           The complainant filed replication controverting the pleas taken by the opposite party in its written statement and reiterating his own version.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           From the report of the investigator (R-3) and the report of Sh. M.M.L. Dhami (R-2), surveyor and loss assessor it is apparent that on 6.1.2010 the car was insured with the opposite party vide policy in question.  It is also proved that on 6.1.2010 Sh. Kulbinder Singh (complainant) was the registered owner of the said car on that day the insurance policy was also in his name.  As per the report of Sh. M.M.L. Dhami, the accident took place on 6.1.2010 near Saha on G.T. Road. This report is in consonance with the facts stated by the complainant in his complaint regarding the cause and manner of accident.  As per the report of Sh. Dhami, the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.82,060/- on repair basis. 

7.                           Ex. C-8 is the repudiation letter dated 8.11.2011 which reads as under :-

“This is with reference to your claim of vehicle No.HR-03-G-5550 make Toyota Innova 2.5 model 2006. As per the information supplied by you the accident took place on 06.01.2010 near Saha on G.T. road and thereafter the vehicle was driven upto Chandigarh.  While processing the claim you were requested to supply the correct information with regard to date, time and place of the accident.  Similarly you were requested to give the detail of the persons who were occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident besides the driver.  This information was required to know the genuineness of the claim.  However, you have failed to supply the above said information correctly.  The company had also appointed investigator and he visited the police station to know as to whether information with regard to the said accident was lodged or not.  It has now been confirmed that no information was given to the police.  No DDR/FIR was lodged.  Still further it is submitted that the company investigator contacted Mr. Raghubir Singh on whose address the vehicle is registered and he has disclosed that no accident took place on 6.1.2010 as alleged by you but in fact it has taken place in the month of December 2009 in the State of Rajasthan.  He also disclosed that vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.  It has also come on record that the damage to the vehicle is as such that it cannot be driven from the spot.  No request was received by the company for the appointment of spot surveyor and with the result great prejudice has been caused to the company. Thus, there being concealment and misrepresentation of the facts the claim stands repudiated being not found genuineness.”

From the bare perusal of the this letter it is apparent that the claim has been repudiated on the following grounds :-

(i)                Not supplying correct information regarding the date, time and place of accident.

(ii)             No intimation given to the police about the accident.

(iii)           Raghubir Singh disclosed that no accident took place on 6.1.2010 and in fact the accident took place in December 2009 in Rajasthan.

(iv)           The vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.

(v)              No request for spot inspection was made.

As far as the first ground is concerned, it is apparent from the report of Sh. M.M.L. Dhami, surveyor and loss assessor that the accident had taken place near Saha on 6.1.2010.  He also mentioned the cause of accident which is almost the same as stated by the complainant in his complaint. So, the version of the complainant regarding the time, place and manner of the accident tallies with the report of the surveyor appointed by the opposite party itself.

8.                           As far as the second ground is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has failed to draw our attention to any clause of the insurance policy which requires that intimation of the accident has to be given to the police immediately.  So, this ground too is frivolous and is not based on the terms and conditions of the policy. 

9.                           So far as 3^rd and 4^th ground are concerned, the conclusions arrived at by the investigator are based on the statement of one Raghubir Singh.  Ex.C6 is the letter dated 30.3.2010 written by said Sh. Raghbir Singh to the company wherein he has explained that his signatures were obtained by misrepresentation of facts.        Similarly the report to the effect that the car was being used for commercial purposes is also based on the statement of Raghubir Singh who has categorically written to the opposite party that his signatures were obtained on misrepresentation of facts. 

10.                       As far as the 5^th ground is concerned, the complainant had given intimation of the accident to the Opposite party.  It was for the opposite party to get the spot inspected.  If the opposite party failed to do so, the complainant cannot be said to be at fault. 

11.                       In view of the said letter written by Sh. Raghubir Singh and keeping in view the fact that Sh. Dhami, who was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor by the opposite party, has supported the version of the complainant regarding the time, place and manner of accident, to our mind the report of the investigator (R-3) cannot be relied upon.  The contention of the complainant is supported by his affidavit whereas the version of the opposite party to this effect is not supported by affidavit of the investigator.

12.                       In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is sufficient merit in this complaint and the same is allowed.  The opposite party is directed as under :-

i)                   to pay sum of Rs.82,060/- as assessed by the surveyor.

ii)                to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment

iii)              to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

14.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31.08.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER