Haryana

Kaithal

208/21

Satbir Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajesh Kapro

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

                     

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 208 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   27.08.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      18.04.2024.

 

Satbir Sharma s/o Shri Kissandutt, aged 55 years, permanent resident of village Narwal, Tehsil Rajound, District Kaithal.

Presently resident of H.No.156, Street No.1, Ward No.22, Balraj Nagar, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. New India Assurance Company Limited, New India Assurance Building, 87 MG Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharastra, through its Authorized Signatory or Director.
2. Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Gagan Building, Opposite Bus Stand, Old GT Road, Karnal.
3. Mr. Chander Parkash, Agent, New India Assurance Company Limited, Tractor Market, Kaithal Road, Assandh, District Karnal.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Rajesh Kapro, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Amit Singh Rana, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

                   Opposite Party No.3 already ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-55G-3551, which was insured with OPs bearing policy No.35440131180100001609 under Commercial Vehicle Package Policy with cover up to Rs.5,70,000/- w.e.f. 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2019. That the said vehicle was damaged in an accident on 11.12.2019 and GD No.018 dated 11.12.2019 was registered at PS City Kaithal and he informed the OPs immediately after the accident. That he had spent Rs.2,00,000/- on the repair of said vehicle and requested the OPs to pay the claim amount by submitting written requested dated 23.01.2020 before OP No.2 through OP No.3, but they wrongly repudiated his claim on 19.02.2020 and refused to pay the claim amount. The above act and conduct of OPs of repudiating his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission and filed their written statement, whereas, OP No.3 failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 30.08.2022, despite receipt of notice by this Commission and was opted to be proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OPs No.1 & 2, in their written statement admitted about insurance of vehicle in question bearing Registration No.HR55G-3551 with them for the period from 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2019 with insured value of Rs.5,70,000/-. It is further stated that the OPs received the information regarding damage of insured vehicle and surveyor submitted its report dated 25.12.2019 regarding particular of the vehicle and external damage to the vehicle and he assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.68000/-. That the insurance policy was valid up to 13.12.2019 and the vehicle in question was damaged on 11.12.2019 at the fag end of effectiveness of the insurance policy i.e. only two days before the expiry of insurance policy. The surveyor has assessed the total loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.68000/- against the estimated cost of Rs.1,81,000/-. That the vehicle was insured by OPs having close body, but the complainant turned the truck in question in open body and thus has violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as per Section 52 of MV Act, claim of complainant was repudiated by OP No.2 vide letter dated 19.02.2020. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OPs and complaint in hand deserves to be dismissed with special cost.

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C11.

6.                On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-5.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-55G-3551, which was insured with OPs bearing policy under Commercial Vehicle Package Policy with cover up to Rs.7,50,000/- w.e.f. 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2019. He further argued that the said vehicle was damaged in an accident on 11.12.2019 and GD No.018 dated 11.12.2019 was registered at PS City Kaithal, and the complainant informed the OPs immediately after the accident. He further argued that the complainant had spent Rs.2,00,000/- on the repair of said vehicle and requested the OPs to pay the claim amount, but they wrongly repudiated his claim on 19.02.2020 and refused to pay the claim amount, which  amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the vehicle in question was insured with OPs for the period from 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2019 with IDV of Rs.5,70,000/-. He further argued that the OPs received the information regarding damage of insured vehicle and surveyor submitted its report dated 25.12.2019 assessing the total loss to the tune of Rs.68,000/-. He further argued that the insurance policy was valid up to 13.12.2019 and the vehicle in question was damaged on 11.12.2019 at the fag end of effectiveness of the insurance policy i.e. only two days before the expiry of insurance policy. He further argued that the truck in question was having close body, at the time of issuance of insurance policy, having metal body, whereas, the complainant has got replaced the wooden body, which is more costly than metal body and thus has violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as per Section 52 of MV Act, claim of complainant was repudiated by OP No.2 vide letter dated 19.02.2020.

10.              Undisputedly, the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-55G-3551 and the same was insured with OPs bearing policy No.35440131180100001609 valid from w.e.f. 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2019, with Insured Value of Rs.5,70,000/-, vide Commercial Vehicle Package Policy Annexure C-2. The said vehicle was damaged, in an accident on 11.12.2019, and in this regard GD No.018 dated 11.12.2019 was registered at Police Station City Kaithal (Annexure C-3). The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs, who repudiated the same, vide letter dated 19.02.2020 Annexure C-11.  

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the complainant had spent Rs.2,00,000/-, on the repair of said vehicle and requested the OPs to pay the claim amount, but they wrongly repudiated his genuine claim on 19.02.2020, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs No.1 & 2. Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainant changed the body of truck in question i.e. from close body to open body and violated the provisions of Section 52 of MV Act, 1988.

12.              However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs deputed a surveyor Er. Surinder Kumar, who submitted his report, which is Annexure R3, on the case file. In that report, the said surveyor has assessed the Net Loss to the tune of Rs.68,000/-. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor is an independent person and its report Annexure R-3, is based on cogent and convincing material and data. So, this report of surveyor Annexure R-3, is taken into consideration, for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. Hence, OPs No.1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs.68,000/- to the complainant, as assessed by the said surveyor, but they failed to pay the same to the complainant, due to which, the complainant might have suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.68,000/- along with compensation + litigation expenses to the complainant.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the sum insured of Rs.68,000/- along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, till its actual realization.

14.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be 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 one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:18.04.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, SSS.