Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/162

P.C PAWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                        Date of institution: 06.03.2006

Complaint Case. No.162/12                                                          Date of order:17.03.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Puran Chand Pawar, R/o. Puja Cottage, C-24, Subhash Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.                                                                                                                    Complainant

VERSUS

1          The Branch Manager (G.D. Juneja), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., B-8, Community Centre, 2^nd Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.  Opposite party no.1

2.        Insurance  Claim Deptt.,  Mr.  Ajay  Kumar Jog (Car Surveyor), Mr.  Shiv Dayal  and  Mr. Ravi, Incharge-Claim Department, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Scope Minar, Core-I, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi.             Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

1.      Briefly case of the complainant as stated is that his car bearing registration no.DL3CU9527 was insured with the opposite parties vide insurance policy no.32350331100100004352 from 20.02.11 to 19.02.12. The car met with an accident on 02.5.11. He was busy in marriage of his son solemnized on 05.05.11. On 04.06.11 he gave the car to Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repairs. The complainant after one week received a telephonic call from Shri Ajay Kumar, Surveyor the opposite party no.2 He told the complainant that the claim of the complainant is more than 1 ½ months old. There upon the complainant contacted different officials of the opposite party no.1. But they did not respond. The complainant spent a sum of Rs.16,300/- on repair of the car. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to reimburse a sum of Rs.16,300/- of the expenses born on repair of the car and pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and litigation expenses.

2.      After notice, the opposite parties filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections of concealment of true facts, the accident took place on 02.05.11 and the complainant in the claim form mentioned the date of accident 02.06.11. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      However, on merits insurance of the car during the subsistence of the policy of the car is admitted. But asserted that the complainant intentionally and wrongfully for false and frivolous compensation mentioned the date of accident 02.06.11 instead of 02.05.11 and removed the vehicle from Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd without repairs. All other allegations of the complainant are vehemently denied and once again prayer for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OPs while admitting that the accident took place on 02.05.11 and he gave the car to Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for 04.06.11 for repairs while controverting stand of the opposite parties and reiterating  his stand.

5.      When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, he filed affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his version relied upon insurance cover note of policy no. 32350331100100004352 from 20.02.11 to 19.02.12, registration certificate of car bearing no. DL3CU9527, marriage card of his son Shri Shekhar, letters dated 13.06.11, 28.07.11 and 04.08.11 written by complainant to the opposite party no.1, estimate and invoice dated 28.07.11 of Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

6.      When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence, they filed affidavit of Shri Vijay Anand, Division Manager of the opposite party no.1 narrating  facts of the complaint. The opposite parties also relied upon Ex OPW-1/1 claim form, Ex OPW-1/2 survey report dated 10.07.11, Ex OPW-1/3 letter dated 13.06.11 of complainant written to the opposite party no.1, Ex OPW-1/4 letter dated 28.07.11 of complainant written to the opposite party no.1, Ex OPW-1/5 letter dated 04.08.11 written by complainant to the opposite party no.1, Ex OPW-1/6 repudiation letter dated 18.07.11 and Ex OPW-1/7 insurance policy.

7.      The parties have also filed their written arguments in support of their respective version. We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.

8.      From the pleadings of the parties and evidence lead by both the sides it is common case of the parties that car bearing registration no. DL3CU9527 was insured with the opposite party no.1 from 20.02.11 to 19.02.12. The car met with an accident on 02.05.11. The marriage of son of complainant was solemnized on 05.05.11. The complainant delivered the car to Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repair on 04.06.11. Whereas the complainant in the claim form mentioned date of the accident 02.06.11. The independent surveyor gave survey report Ex OPW-1/2 stating that the accident has taken place on 02.05.11 and the complainant intentionally gave wrong date of the accident 02.06.11. The opposite parties vide repudiation letter Ex OPW-1/6 repudiate claim of the complainant stating that “however, on inspection it was found that the damages sustained were old and after having discussion with you, it was revealed that the date of accident was 02.05.11 and not 02.06.11 as mentioned in the claim form and moreover, the subject vehicle was removed from the workshop without carrying any repairing work”.

9.      Admittedly, the accident took place on 02.05.11. The complainant gave the car to Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repair on 04.06.11 after lapse of a period of more than one month. Whereas condition no.1 of the insurance policy EX OPW-1/7 reads as under :-

“notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and / or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”.

10.    In view of condition no.1 of the insurance policy Ex OPW-1/7 the complainant was required to give notice to the opposite party no.1 immediately from the accident. But he gave notice to the opposite party no.1 on 04.6.2001 after  lapse of a period of more than one month, when he gave the car no. DL3CU9527        for repairs. Hence, case of the complainant is hit by condition no.1 of the insurance policy Ex OPW-1/7.

11.    In the light of above discussion and observation firstly the complainant intentionally gave wrong date of accident 02.06.11 instead of 02.05.11. He concealed the true facts. Secondly he did not give notice in writing to the opposite party no.1 immediately from the accident. He gave notice after lapse of a period of more than one month, therefore, the case of the complainant is hit by condition no.1 of the insurance policy Ex OPW-1/7. Hence, the complainant fails to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service or the part of the opposite party. Whereas the complainant has tried to mislead the opposite party giving wrong date of accident. Hence, there is no merit in the complaint. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :17.03.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                      (URMILA GUPTA)                                      ( R.S.  BAGRI )

     MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT