Haryana

Sonipat

CC/95/2016

Naveen S/o Sham Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kamal Hooda

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.95 of 2016

                             Instituted on:01.04.2016                                       Date of order:12.08.2016

 

Naveen son of Sham Singh, resident of village Jharothi, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.

Versus

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, service to be effected at Divisional Office, Ist Floor, Vardhman Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Oshram Chowk, Sonepat.                                                                                             …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Kamal Hooda Adv. for complainant.

         Sh. Surender Malik Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the owner of Maruti Ritz Car no.HR-79-1545 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 27.11.2012 to 26.11.2013 with IDV of Rs.5,75,000/-. Unfortunately on 13.11.2013 the said vehicle has met with an accident.  The complainant sustained injuries and his car was totally damaged.  FIR was also registered against the driver of the canter u/s 279/337 IPC.  The respondent was informed and the complainant has submitted his claim and has provided all the relevant documents for the disposal of the claim. In the month of 3/2015, the respondent sent a letter to the complainant vide which, his claim was repudiated on the ground that there was smell of alcohol from the breath of the complainant at the time of medico-legal examination.  The complainant has alleged the action of the respondent to be wrong and illegal and this has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as he has plied his vehicle in question with influence of liquor having alcohol PR 78 ml which is beyond the prescribed limit and due to this, he has lost the control over the car and has met with an accident. The complainant himself is liable for his own wrongs and his claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent insurance company.  Further there is a delay in giving intimation regarding the accident to the respondent as the accident took place on 13.11.2013 and intimation was given on 27.12.2013.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent insurance company has repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as he has plied his vehicle in question with influence of liquor having alcohol PR 78 ml which is beyond the prescribed limit and due to this, he has lost the control over the car and has met with an accident. The complainant himself is liable for his own wrongs and his claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent insurance company.  Further there is a delay in giving intimation regarding the accident to the respondent as the accident took place on 13.11.2013 and intimation was given on 27.12.2013.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent because the perusal of the MLR shows that there is smell from the mouth of the driver of the vehicle and it is no where mentioned that he was under the effect of alcohol/liquor.  Further more, the FIR was registered against the driver of vehicle no.UP-15-BT-3961 as he was negligent while driving his vehicle.

         The vehicle was insured with the respondent with IDV of Rs.542122/-. In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent.  Thus, after deducting mandatory compulsory deduction and depreciating 20% of the insured vehicle, the loss comes to Rs.432597/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.432597/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both

the parties free of costs. File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member         Member                DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 12.08.2016