Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 223.
Instituted on : 08.05.2019
Decided on : 07.02.2024.
Sachin Kumar age 33 years s/o sh. Suresh Kumar R/o VPO Bhagwatipur Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- New India Insurance company, Divisional office(353800), 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- New India Assurance Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001(Maharashtra).
- M.G.Motors, MoaujaKutana, Hisar Road, Rohtak(HR).
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vijay Pal Gehlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.SameerGambhir, Advocate for the opposite party No.1& 2.
Opposite party No. 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he insured his vehiclei.e. Tata Truck bearing No.HR46E8798 from the opposite party no.1 vide policy no.1222003118135001904 dated 31.05.2018 through opposite party no.3for the period 31.05.2018 to 30.05.2019. On 05.10.2018 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant intimated opposite parties for the claim, inspection of the vehicle was done by the surveyor and loss was assessed but till today the amount of claim has not been paid . It is further submitted that on 05.12.2018 the above said vehicle of the complainant was again met with accident then he immediately intimated the opposite parties regarding the accident. Again a surveyor was appointed and opposite parties assessed the loss and gave assurance to the complainant to reimburse the whole amount of both accidents. Complainant visited the office of opposite parties no.1 & 3 and submitted all required documents for claim but all in vain. The act of 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 pay the insurance claim amount and also to pay Rs.75000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to pay rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their written statement has submitted that opposite party no.2 is not a necessary party and the name of the respondent no.2 be deleted from the array of respondents. It is further submitted that Insurance company has observed that complainant has availed 20% NCB in their policy at the time of renewal from the New India Assurance company Ltd. Against previous policy no.353800311703000027121 but on NCB verification it has been found that complainant had taken a claim on policy no.35380031170300002721. Complainant has not informed the insurance company regarding the said previous claim which is misrepresentation of fact and breach of utmost good faith which is violation of 64VB and condition no.8 of Motor Insurance policy. Complainant has intentionally not submitted information at the time of availing insurance cover from the answering respondent that his vehicle was earlier damaged. So the insured had concealed as well as misrepresent the NCB facts, hence the claim stands repudiated. The claim of the complainant is not payable on account of concealment of previous claim and availed 20% NCB and the same is clearly violation of insurance contract. It is also submitted that answering opposite party has paid the amount of Rs.89500/- in the month of March 2019 of the vehicle and the alleged damages of the vehicle. It is denied that complainant has incurred any amount and expenses of the alleged accident dated 05.10.2018 and 05.12.2018. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party no.3 did not appear despite service of notice through Process-Server of this Commission. As such opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.07.2019 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on 05.04.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1& 2 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and thereafter failed to conclude their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. Hence the evidence of opposite party No.1 & 2 was closed by the Court order dated 21.01.2022. At the time of arguments, a document Annexure-JN-A has been placed on record by opposite party No.1 & 2.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case company has filed written statement. In the written statement respondent has pleaded that the insurance company had already paid an amount of Rs.89500/- in the month of March 2019. At the time of arguments the respondent placed on record a document dated 28.03.2019 as ‘Annexure-JN-R’. Perusal of this document shows that an amount of Rs.89500/- has been paid by the complainant during the policy period started from 31.05.2018 to 30.05.2019 but this amount has been paid against the damages occurred on 03.02.2019. Meaning thereby that the complainant’s vehicle was firstly met with an accident on 05.10.2018, thereafter on 05.12.2018 and again on 03.02.2019. The insurance company has paid an amount of Rs.89500/- on account of damages occurred on 03.02.2019. Hence one claim has been paid for the policy period 31.05.2018 to 30.05.2019 and not paid the loss dated 05.10.2018. As per our opinion the company cannot apply two stands at one time. Meaning thereby the company has wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant against the claim intimation dated 05.10.2018. On the other hand neither any claim number, nor any evidence of damages has been placed on record by the complainant. The complainant has not mentioned any amount of loss in his complaint anywhere. Merely in the prayer clause he requested to pay the claim amount alongwith Rs.75000/- on account of compensation and physical harassment, mental agony and the same situation is in his affidavit also. Moreover he has not submitted any photographs of damaged vehicle, no bill or any estimate before this Commission for assessment of loss suffered by the complainant in his vehicle. But as per survey report Ex.R4, the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.122100/-. Hence as per our opinion, complainant is entitled for the alleged amount after deducting 25% amount on account of NCB. i.e. Rs.91575/-(Rs.122100/- less Rs.30525/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.91575/-(Rupees ninety one thousand five hundred and seventy five only), also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation 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, failing which opposite party No. 1 & 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the amount of claim i.e. Re.91575/- from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
8. 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:
07.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
