Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 597
Instituted on : 05.12.2018
Decided on : 20.05.2024
Sandeep Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Chander r/o Village-Makroli Kalan, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office, New India Assurance Building 87, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai Through its Managing Director.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Wazir Lal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anil Sharma Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are he is registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration no.HR-38S-4124 Trola Eicher Jambo 2016 and the same was insured with respondent’s company vide policy No.35380631160100002847 for a period from 31.03.2017 to 30.03.2018. On 01.10.2017 the said vehicle was going from Panipat to Indore and on the way the same vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. Sh. Ram Niwas s/o Sh. Prabhu informed the police and a case vide FIR No.336 dated 01.10.2017 was registered in P.S.Naseerabad(Ajmer). The surveyor of respondent inspected the vehicle of the complainant and amount of Rs.201646/- was spent on repairing of vehicle. The complainant submitted his claim to respondent’s company and submitted all the relevant documents as asked by respondent’s officials. Complainant requested the respondent’s officials to disburse the claim amount in his favour and also submitted all the relevant documents as desired by officials of respondents but despite his repeated requests, claim amount has not been disbursed to the complainant till date. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.201646/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident till the date of actual realisation and also to pay Rs.100000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their written statement submitting therein that complaint is pre-mature as the complainant has not completed the required documents and formalities and quarries raised by the opposite parties. So without submitting the required documents, completing the formalities and quarries, the opposite party is unable to process the claim file of the complainant and hence the claim file of the complainant is still pending for want of required documents and formalities. It is further submitted that on receiving the intimation from the complainant on 04.10.2017 the opposite parties immediately appointed Ms. Sunita Shorya, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for the spot survey of the vehicle No.HR-38S-4124 and Sh. Vinod Kumar Wadhwa, Surveyor was appointed for the final survey of the above said vehicle. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss of the vehicle to Rs.201646.16 paisa but the same is not payable subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and surveyor submitted his report in the office of the opposite parties on 20.04.2018. It is further submitted that accident took place on 01.10.2017 and the intimation in this regard was given by the complainant to the opposite party on 04.10.2017, then spot survey was conducted at H.P.Gas Plant, Nasirabad, accordingly on the version of the complainant the vehicle was shifted to Rohtak and intimation in this regard was given on 26.10.2017. Final survey was done. After scrutinize the documents submitted by the complainant, the opposite parties found that the name of the driver in GR of the vehicle was Sumit whereas in the claim form the driver is Kaptan Singh and the insured has not provided the driving licence of Sumit. Opposite party sent a letter dated 12.05.2018 and 06.09.2018 requesting the complainant to submit the required documents, formalities and quarries as required by the opposite parties but the complainant failed to provide the same. It is further submitted that the towing bill was also fake as verified from the Triveni Crane Service, Rohtak. Fitness certificate as provided by the complainant was also in the name of Naveen whereas the said vehicle is in the name of Sandeep. Opposite parties requested the complainant to clarify the same enabling the opposite party to process further but the complainant has completely ignored the genuine request of the opposite party and has not provided the required documents clarification etc. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 and has closed his evidence on dated 03.01.2022. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 21.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by ld. Counsel for the opposite parties as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the respondent insurance company submitted the written arguments before this Commission. The main contention of the respondent insurance company is that at the time of accident Kaptan Singh was driving the vehicle in question as per claim form whereas as per GR Sumit was driving the vehicle and the insurance company wrote a letter to the complainant to clarify this fact. As per our opinion both the driving licences are placed on record by the complainant as Ex.P27 and Annexure JNA(placed on record at the time of arguments). We have minutely perused these licenses. Both the persons are authorized to drive the transport vehicle by the concerned licensing authorities and they also covered the date of accident. Meaning thereby both the licences are valid on the date of accident. The second contention of the respondent is that the towing bill submitted by the complainant before the insurance company was found fake when same was verified by the surveyor during the investigation. The surveyor wrote letter to the insurance company in this regard and submitted that he visited on the Hissar Road Rohtak and tried to find out the shop of Triveni Heavy Crane Services, Rohtak and found that record of the bill no.122 is not in the bill book. So he considered the bill as fake one. As per our opinion the surveyor has not submitted any authentic documents issued by the Triveni Heavy Crane Services that they have not issued the towing bill for the vehicle bearing registration no.HR38S-4124. Moreover the towing bill has no impact upon the assessment of the claim of the complainant because the complainant has filed his OD claim against the damaged vehicle. The respondent insurance company has also contended that the fitness certificate provided to the surveyor was in the name of Naveen Kumar whereas the vehicle in question was in the name of complainant Sandeep Kumar s/o Ram chander. As per our opinion the fitness certificate was issued against the vehicle no.HR38S/4124 or not in the name of owner of the vehicle. We have minutely perused the fitness certificate placed on record as Ex.R5. The fitness certificate was valid upto 19.05.2018 whereas accident took place on 01.10.2017. So the fitness certificate is in proper order because the same is issued against the vehicle bearing registration no. HR38S/4124. It is also observed that opposite parties in their reply has submitted that they have sent two letters dated 12.05.2018 and 06.09.2018 to the complainant to submit the documents/clarifications. But only one letter dated 06.09.2018 is placed on record. Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the opposite parties on illegal grounds and as such there is deficiency in service on their part. As per survey report Ex.R2, the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.201646.16P and as such opposite parties are liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.201646/-(Rupees two lac one thousand six hundred and forty six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.12.2018 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.05.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
