Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/126/2018

Jitender - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

U.S Parmar

18 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                                                  Complaint Case No.:126 of 2018

       Date of Institution   : 17.09.2018

                                                  Date of Decision     : 18.12.2023

 

Jitender son of Sh. Bhisham Chander R/o Gali No.22, Khadi Mohalla, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                            ….Complainant.

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 1215, 12^th Floor, Naurang House 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi havng its Branch Office Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through Branch Manager.

....Opposite Party.

 

                 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before: -    Smt. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Naresh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                 Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for OP.

        

ORDER

Smt. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.   

1.           Brief facts of this case are that complainant is/was owner of vehicle Maruti Ertiga VDI BS bearing regn. No.HR-16L-9093, Engine No.139432, Chasis No.1971894, Model 2012. The vehicle was insured with OP vide policy No.98000031160104526591 valid from 26.10.2016 to 24.10.2017.  On 16.08.2017, the vehicle met with an accident and got completely damaged. DDR No.23 dated 23.08.2017 was lodged in P.S. Kalanaur qua this incident.  OP was informed, it inspected the vehicle. The vehicle was got repaired by complainant by incurring Rs.2.00 lac. Claim qua this amount was filed before OP but the claim was not released. So, legal notice was served upon the OP but of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer made by complainant for issuing directions to OP to pay Rs.2.00 lac alongwith interest @ 18% upto date, to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of negligence of OP, further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.
2.           OP appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the DDR was lodged on 23.08.2017 and as per its version, occupants of the car had gone to Gurugram Airport and the accident occurred at Gulshan Dhaba, Kalanaur.  The owner of the car was on the driver seat at the relevant time but as per statement of insured and driver, they had gone to Delhi Airport and accident occurred near Kala ka Dhaba Kakalaur. The insured alongwith the driver were sitting in the car. It has submitted that the insured given intimation after 12 days. The claim intimation form was submitted by the insured in which date of accident is mentioned as 21.08.2017 at 7.30 a.m.  The insured also submitted the claim form on 25.08.2017 in which he has mentioned that the accident was occurred on 16.08.2017. As such, the complainant himself has violated the terms and condition of insurance policy. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any claim from the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
3.          Complainant filed replication wherein he has reiterated the version of the complaint. With regard to delay in submitting the claim form, complainant has submitted that he was busy for getting treatment of his companions who had received grievous injuries.  With regard to date of accident as 21.08.2017 has submitted that it was a clerical mistake.  
4.           In evidence of complainant, affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 have been filed and closed the evidence.
5.            On the other side, documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-14  have been filed and closed the evidence.
6.           We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the case file minutely.

7.                     From DDR (Annexure R-9) and MLRs (Annexures C-4 to C-6), it is clear that the accident took place on 16.08.2017.  However, clarification with regard to mistake in mentioning the date of accident to the OP has been given by complainant by filing affidavit Annexure R-5. Perusal of insurance policy, placed on record during the course of arguments (Annexure-X) reveals that  the vehicle was insured in the name of complainant at the time of accident and was having IDV as Rs.4,33,783/-.  From vehicle repair bills (Annexure C-1 to C-3), it is clear that complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.1,52,600/- on repair of the accidental vehicle. We have perused the surveyor’s report (Annexure R-12 & R-13) wherein Net Assessed Loss to the vehicle has been shown as Rs.1,28,479/- after all the necessary deductions. To support of his contention, learned counsel for complainant placed reliance on the case law delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  case titled  as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & another reported in AIR 2017 (4836 SC) wherein it has been held that ‘Consumer Protection Act-Complaint-Limitation-Delay of 8 days-Vehicle owner lodging insurance claim with company for theft of vehicle-Repudiation of claim by insurance company on account of breach of policy condition –Investigator verifying theft to be genuine-Owner of vehicle giving cogent reasons for delay in informing-Policy condition does not bar settlement of genuine claims when delay is due to unavoidable circumstances-Insurance company liable to pay compensation’.

The counsel has further relied upon a case law delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1069 of 2022 titled as Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as per which Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded 75% claim of IDV and has further held that: “Mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. 

8.                     In the present case, there is delay of 7 days in intimating the occurrence to the police and further 2 days delay in intimating the insurance company and the delay has duly explained by the complainant. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we have come to conclusion that that the amount shown payable in the surveyor’s report in this case is well reasoned and thus we incline to award the same to the complainant. Further, OP are negligent and deficient in providing proper service to the complainant and non-payment of the amount under the claim was not reasonable and justified. The case laws (supra) relied upon by the counsel for complainant are much helpful in deciding the present case.  Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within fourty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)        To pay a sum of Rs.1,28,479/- (Rs. one lac twenty eight thousand four hundred seventy nine) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization.

(ii)       Also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of OP.

(iii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                        Further the award issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 18.12.2023