Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/98/2020

Vijaypal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Rajesh Phogat

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

 

Consumer Complaint No. 98 of 2020

                                                Date of Institution:       29.12.2020

                                                Date of Decision   :      20.02.2024

 

Vijaypal aged 34 years son of Bhagwan Singh resident of Rohtak Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and  District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                                      .. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. New India Assurance Company, Branch Office Bhiwani, Tehsil &  District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
2. Policy Bazaar com Building No.119, Ground Floor, Sector-44, Gurugram-122002(Haryana) through its CEO cum Founder of policy Bazaar Com.

 

                                                                                                ..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

BEFORE:            Manjit Singh Naryal              :        PRESIDENT

                             Dharam Pal Rauhilla             :        MEMBER

 

PRESENT:          Sh. Rajesh Phogat, Adv. for complainant.

                            Sh. Vinod Chahar, Adv. for OP no. 1.     

                            Sh. Shashikant, Adv. for OP no.2. 

                            

ORDER:

1.           The complainant Vijaypal has filed this complaint before this Commission with the averments that he is registered owner of Vehicle I-20 Sports CRD-1 car bearing registration no. HR-10AD-8859, engine no. DAFCHM364395, chasis no. MALBM51RHM407302, Model 2017. It is averred that complainant got the vehicle insured with the OP no. 1 through website of policy bazaar.com and an insurance policy no. 31030031190300173517 w.e.f. 22.08.2019 to 21.08.2020. As per terms and conditions of said insurance policy, the risk of accident, theft and damages etc. have been covered. It is averred that on 23.12.2019, at about 7:30 AM, when complainant with his friend Sahil son  of Munna Lal were going  from Charkhi Dadri to Bhiwani  by driving the said vehicle and on being crossed the Rawaldhi bypass, all of sudden, the said vehicle was caught fire and in such situation complainant and his friend at once come out from the said vehicle and tried to defuse the fire but all in vain. Thereafter the complainant informed the fire brigade and police by making telephonic call and informed the OP no.1 also in regard to this incident. On receiving the information, fire brigade arrived on the spot and overcome on the flame fire. It is pleaded that as per directions of the OP no.1, the complainant had taken the said vehicle in the garage at Mahindra and Mahindra at Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri on 24.12.2019.  It is averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant, on 25.01.2020 official of OP no.1 inspected the vehicle and advised to submit the requisite documents and complete formalities with the OPs for settlement of the claim from the OP no.1. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OP no.1 and OP no.1 assured the complainant to indemnify by making payment of proper compensation but despite repeated requests and constant demands, no amount of claim has so far been made by the OP no.1 and lingering on the matter on one pretext to other. This act is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1. The complainant served legal notice sent by registered post on 07.06.2020. But the same has brought no fruitful result and claim of the complainant was repudiated by the 11.12.2020. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the compensation adequately to the complainant with interest @18% per annum from the date of incident till payment alongiwith compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

2.       Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statement.

          The OP No.1 in written statement took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted by the opposite party no.1  that there was delay  in intimation of the claim to the company, intimation to the police in lodging of FIR/DDR and this amounts to violation of condition of policy, according to policy condition which states that “the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle  from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at  all times free and full access to examine the vehicle  or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured in the event of any accident or break down, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage  or loss and if, the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured own cost/risk.”

No pre inspection of the vehicle before obtaining insurance of the vehicle was conducted which is condition precedent before issuance of insurance and further failed to satisfy the insurer regarding the incident of fire, cause of fire, any expert report regarding the fire. The complainant did not provide necessary papers to the company for processing of the claim. The vehicle was surveyed by Surveyor and Loss Assessor. After completion of the survey, the surveyor and loss assessor Sh. Amajeet Singh Dugal has submitted the survey report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,24,000/- on net liability  on net of salvage basis (without RC) and Rs. 5,74,650/- on net liability  on repair basis. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OP no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

                   OP No.2 in written statement has submitted that the OP no.2 only acts as an intermediary between the policyholder and insurance company. As a matter of fact, the complainant visited the website of policy Bazar viz. “policybazaar.com” and compared various insurance policies on the basis of his requirements as filled up by it. The comparison of the insurance policies over the aforesaid website is based on the inputs provided by the visitor on the website and the veracity of the said inputs cannot be checked by policy Bazaar. It is submitted that the complainant, out of his own violation, opted for availing insurance from OP no.1 as per his own needs and requirements and paid the premium amount of the policy to OP no.1. It is submitted that OP no.2 has nothing to do with the settlement or repudiation of claim by the OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint

3.                In his evidence, the counsel for the complainant has filed  affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW-2/A  and  documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4  and evidence of complainant was closed vide order dt.25.04.2022

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP no. 1 filed affidavit Ex.R-1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13, affidavit  Ex.R-2/A and document Ex.R-2/B to Ex.R2/J and affidavit Ex.R-3/A and document Ex.R-3/B and evidence of OP no.1 was closed vide order dt.15.02.2023.

5.                Sh. Shashikant Sharma, Advocate for OP no.2 made a statement that he closed his evidence vide his separate statement dt.29.05.2023

6.                Arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and documents available on file have been perused.

7.                While having due regard to the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, it is observed that it is not in dispute that complainant is owner of vehicle no. HR-10AD-8859. As per complainant, the said vehicle was insured from respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 22.08.2019 to 21.08.2020 as is evident from copy of insurance policy Ex.C2. The same met with an accident/fire on 23.12.2019 during the validity of the insurance policy which was valid and effective for the period w.e.f. 22.08.2019 to 21.08.2020 and the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged in the said accident/fire  and it was a total loss for him. To prove this fact, he has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. moreover, the OP no.1 has also appointed their investigating & Detective Agency whose report dated  16.03.2020 is on file (Ex.R-2/B) and  surveyor whose report  dated 13.08.2020 is on file Ex.R-3/B. However, the OPs asserted that since, the complainant failed to provide various documents/information as demanded by the Opposite party no.1  (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) therefore, claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim”. Thus, the claim has not been decided on merits.

                   Regarding the accident, GD no.50 dated 23.12.2019(Ex.C3) was lodged with PS Dadri city and called fire brigade who extinguished the fire and completed other formalities by the complainant. However, the OP No.1 vide letter dated 11.12.2020 has denied the lawful claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

8.                We have perused the surveyor report Ex.R-3/B dated 13.08.2020 submitted by Shri Amarjit Singh Duggal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor vide letter Ex.R-3/B.  The surveyor has assessed net liability on net of salvage basis (without RC) as Rs. 5,24,000/- and  the net liability on repair basis as Rs.5,74,650/-. The surveyor Shri Amarjit Singh Duggal has also filed his sworn affidavit Ex.R-3/A and supported his report. In our view, the complainant is only entitled to get the amount of Rs. 5,24,000/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report for net liability on net of salvage basis (without RC). The Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission in various authoritative decisions have held that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.

9.                It is evident from the records/ documents submitted that pursuant to filing claim by the complainant, the OP No.1 (insurance company) has appointed M/s Royal Associates  Investigating and Detective Agency who after giving details and  obtaining statement of  witnesses submitted its report on 16.03.2020 Ex.R-2/B. The agency concluding its report has given opinion as under:-

 “On  the basis of above said findings and documentary evidence, we are for the opinion that date, time and place of incident was found correct. Fire broke out suddenly in moving car.Eyewitness as well as insured confirmed about fire in moving car. No foul play was noticed in ignition of car. There is no delay in giving information  to fire station as well as police station. Cause of fire is unknown. Car was in good running and looking condition at the time of incident. So the claim seems to be genuine. Insurer may deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said findings. This report is issued without prejudice.”

Subsequently, the insurance company is also engaged M/s Amarjit Singh Duggal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for carrying out  Motor Survey Report to assess the loss occurred to the vehicle who had submitted its report No.2021/ASD/0180 dated 13.08.2020 (Ex.R3/B) and given net liability on net of salvage basis (without RC) Rs. 5,24,000/- and net liability on repair was Rs. 5,74,650/-. M/s Amarjit Singh Duggal concluding its report has recommended  as under:-

“Taking into account the physical verification of the insured vehicle documents submitted the details of mishap were discussed with the insured. The damages/mishap were found fresh/consistent with the cause of mishap. It may be noted that the statement given in the claim form that the insured vehicle got burnt very near from the residence is possible. The loss is possible due to short circuit and the same is admissible as per policy condition.”

Both the reports were given by the agencies appointed by the OP no.1 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd). However not agreeing to the recommendations of its own appointed agencies, the OP no.1 has opted to pass on  blame on the complainant for not submitting the documents to avoid any liability and deny the claim. Hence we found, OPs deficient in service and allow the present complaint.

10.              To do complete and substantial justice between the parties, the opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,24,000/- net liability on net of salvage basis (without RC)  to the complainant subject to submission of subrogation letter, alongwith  requisite Form 26, 27, 29 and 30(A) to the insurance company. It is made clear that the above ordered awarded amount shall be paid   by the OP no.1 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization of the final payment.

11.              The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards pain, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.

12.              The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which OP no.1 shall be liable to pay interest    on the said amount @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization.

13.               Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.