Haryana

Karnal

219/02

Mulakh Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.L. Chabra

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.219 of 2002

                                                               Date of instt. 1.03.2002

                                                               Date of decision:  09.09.2015

 

Mulakh Raj son of Shri Sain Dass, Prop. M/s Sain Dass Trading Company, c/o Puran Chand Rice Mills, Taraori, District Karnal and resident of 531/6, Patel Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

New India Assurance company Ltd. G.T.Road, Karnal through its Sr. Divisional Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.S.L.Chhabra Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.

         

ORDER:

 

                        The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, are that complainant was owner of Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No. HR-07B-9619  and he got  insured the said car  with the  Opposite Party ( in short OP) vide cover note  dated 10.2.1999.  Due premium was also paid to the OP.  Unfortunately, the car met with an accident on 22.3.99, while complainant was coming from Yamuna Nagar to Kurukshetra and  First Information Report in that regard was  got registered. The car totally damaged in the said accident. The OP was  duly informed. Sh.Ravi Gupta, surveyor of OP inspected the car and submitted report regarding the loss. The complainant came to know that claim regarding damages to his car was assessed to Rs.1,94,000/-.  However, claim of the complainant bearing No.98/562   remained pending with the OP and the matter was delayed on one pretext or the other. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which caused mental harassment apart from financial loss to the complainant.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint was filed more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action; that the complaint is not maintainable and that claim of the complainant was closed as “ No Claim” after obtaining report of the investigator.

 

                   On merits the factum of insurance of the car of the complainant has been admitted, but the cause of accident has been denied. It has also been admitted that Ravi Gupta was appointed Surveyor to assess the loss and he submitted his report. It has further been pleaded that later-on Sh.S.K.Gupta was appointed as Investigator and he also submitted his report. Cause of accident has not been correctly shown in the complaint. In fact, the claim of the complainant was duly processed by appointing surveyor and investigator and the same was closed as  “No Claim” on the basis of report of investigator and the complainant was duly informed about the same. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the OP, affidavit of Shri Rajender Singh Senior Divisional Manager,  Ex.O1 and documents Ex. O2 to Ex.O5 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The copy of the letter dated 3.7.2000 Ex.O3 sent by the OP to the complainant shows that claim of the complainant was repudiated on the grounds that car had not met with any accident during validity of the insurance cover, which was purchased by him after   unavoidable delay of 209 days and the that date, time and in the manner of the accident was fabricated in conspiracy with witnesses as cited in the claim form with a wrongful intention of securing false claim. Thus, the OP had not disputed the factum of accident but the date, time and manner thereof were disputed and on that ground the claim was repudiated.  In this way, the matter into controversy boils down into a narrow compass and the main question which   arises for consideration is whether the accident resulting into damage to the car of the complainant took place on the date, time and in the  manner alleged by the complainant after the issuance of the insurance police by the OP or prior to issuance thereof.

 

7.                First information report No.38 dated 22.3.99  was lodged  in Police Station, Radaur,  regarding accident  and copy of the same is Ex.C2. As per version  put forth therein,   on the night of 22.3.99, first informant  was returning from Yamuna Nagar to Kurukshetra. When he reached at a distance of about 150 yards, a head of Petrol Pump, Radaur towards Ladwa at about 4.00AM, he stopped his car, parked the same in Kacha portion and went for easing out.  While he was returning towards the car, he saw that a truck came from the side of Ladwa being driven at a very high speed,  rashly and negligently  and hit his car from front side and  thereafter the driver  sped away the truck towards Yamuna Nagar. He also submitted that number of the truck  could not be noted due to darkness. He gave names of two  persons  Rai Singh and Kishori Lal as eye witnesses who were coming on a scooter from the side of Ladwa.

 

8.                The main plank of OP is report Ex.O5 of Krishan Gopal Dewan of Third Eye Detective, who was deputed by the OP to investigate the factum, time and manner of the accident.  The opening paragraph of the report reads as under:-

         

                   “Kindly refer to your R.O.Ludhiana letter no. LRO:MOT:01:2000 dated 28.1.2000 entrusting us the investigation of above case.

                             This is an exceptional case of its own nature in which the insured through his pet witnesses has fabricated false evidence with the help of above accomplices like your Development Officer, Photographer, Repair Workshop, some officials of your Company and even the Police of Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. It relates to an accident occurring to a car somewhere, apparently during the long gap in Insurance coverage, then Insurance cover was taken through your Development Officer, Shri S.K.Narang and after that the damaged vehicle was placed on Ladwa  Radaur Road at night time near a friendly concern M/s Bajrang Bali Rice Mills and removed in the darkness to the said Rice Mill premises after showing the accident having taken place there, getting an DIR registered, making the Police Investigation  dance to their tune getting the car released on superdari the same day from Yamuna Nagar Court and finally getting the Police case filed as Untraced.”

         

                     In the concluding para , he gave findings as follows:

                    “ From our investigations and on the basis of arguments given above, we are of the opinion that Car No. HR-07.B.9619 did not meet any accident at the alleged place of accident on Ladwa- Radaur Road on the night of 21/22.3.99.The accident under all circumstances appears to have taken place at some other place on any date during the gap period of Insurance. The second  Insurance Policy (Ex.”B”) was taken after the accident. None of the witnesses supporting the story of the insured and even the Police File and the previous Investigator’s report inspire any confidence. We cannot recommend the claim to be paid. “

 

9.                 The report of the Investigator read as a whole makes it  quite clear that car of the complainant had met with an accident.  As  per his findings, the car met with an accident at some other place and  on some other date. He  could not collect any material during his investigation as on which date and at  which place accident had taken place. There is no material to support his findings that the accident had taken place on any date during the gap period of Insurance and the second Insurance was  taken after the accident. His findings were based only upon his suspicion imagination,  surmises and conjectures and not even an iota of evidence could be collected by him to support such findings.  The policy was issued on 10.2.99 and the accident had taken place on 22.3.99. Even if, it is accepted that accident had not taken place on 22.3.99 then also it cannot be accepted without any cogent evidence that the accident took place prior to date of Insurance i.e. 10.2.99. It is worth mentioning that initially Col. Suresh Gupta was deputed as investigator by the OP, who had also submitted his report and concluded that he was convinced  that car met with an accident at 4.00AM on 22.3.99, while it was lying parked on the left side of the road  about 2 KMs from Radaur to Ladwa . The OP has not given any reason as to why report of the  said Investigator was not accepted and Krishan Gopal Dewan was deputed to re- investigate the case.

 

10.                          As per case of the complainant, accident had taken place on 22.3.99. Mr. Krishan Gopal Dewan was deputed as investigator on 28.1.00 and he submitted his report on 5.4.2000 after a long period of more than one year of the accident.   First Information Report regarding the accident in question was registered  and admittedly police could not trace out the truck involved in the accident and address and name of the driver of the  same and case remained untraced. It is also important to highlight that as per the case of the OP, the complainant got insured his car after 209 days after lapse of the original policy. In such a situation the concerned agent of the Insurance Company must have checked the car of the complainant before issuing the cover note and insurance company would have also verified about the existence and condition of the car before issuance of the policy. The accident had taken place after a period of 40 days of the issuance of the Insurance policy. If the accident had taken place  prior to issuance of the policy, the complainant would not  have  waited for such a long period to lodge the claim before the insurance company alleging that accident had taken place on 22.3.99. Under such circumstances, the report of investigator can not be accepted that accident had taken place prior to 10.2.99.

 

11.               It is admitted fact that surveyor appointed by the company had assessed the loss as Rs.1, 94,000/- The claim of the complainant was closed by the OP only on the basis of report of Investigator, which was not supported by any cogent or reasonable evidence. Thus, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP was not justified, which amounted to deficiency in services on the part of OP.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.1, 94,000/- to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10, 000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.1, 94,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of this order till its actual realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:09.09.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.S.L.Chhabra Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:09.09.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.