BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

Complaint No.130/2018.

Date of instt.:16.04.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 03.06.2019.

Narender Kumar aged 53 years son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of House No.493, Sector-20, Part- Ist, HUDA, Sirsa.

                                                                            ……….Complainant.

                                                Versus

New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Office at Near Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT, 1986.

Before:      SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT                              

                   SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER                                                

                   MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.

Present:      Shri B.S.Vinayak Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K.Bahiya, Adv. for the OP.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he is owner of car Volkawalgen Vento 1.6 MT bearing registration No.HR-24T/5555 and he got the same insured with Op vide policy No. 3537003160300006458 having validity w.e.f. 15.11.2015 to 14.11.2017. Unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 15.09.2017 near Moriwala Sirsa. Due intimation was given to the Op through agent and thereafter, the vehicle was got inspected by the surveyor, who in his report has calculated the total loss of the car as Rs.6,79,822/-. The complainant had lodged the claim with the OP and also completed all the formalities but instead of settling the claim, the Op had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 09.03.2018, which was prepared on 27.02.2018, on the ground that the information was not supplied to the insurance company within the prescribed period. The complainant requested the Op to make the payment but it refused to do so. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence, this complaint.  

2.                          On notice, Op appeared and filed its joint reply, whereby it has been submitted that present complaint is not maintainable and the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts. It has been further submitted that at the time of purchasing the insurance policy for the period from 15.11.2016 to 14.11.2017, the complainant had availed 25 % discount (NCB) and he had not disclosed the fact qua obtaining of compensation against the said vehicle from the previous insurance company, which is a willful violation of the policy, therefore, the claim in question has rightly been repudiated. No such information was ever provided by the complainant and neither any surveyor of the company had visited at the spot of accident. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence.

4.                          We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully.

5.                           The complainant, in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also tendered documents such as transcript of proposal for private car Ex.C1, certificate of insurance Ex.C2, private car package policy schedule Ex.C3, policy schedule Ex.C4, registration certificate Ex.C5, repudiation letter  Ex.C6, final survey report Ex.C7, survey fee bill Ex.C8 and estimate Ex.C9

                             On the other hand, the Op has not led any evidence and learned counsel for the Ops has closed the evidence of Ops on 31.05.2019 by making his separate statement.

6.                          It is an admitted fact that the complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-24T/5555, which was insured with the Op for the period from 15.11.2016 to 14.11.2017. During the validity of the policy, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 15.09.2017, as a result of which, the vehicle was fully damaged. Due intimation was given to the OP and the OP had appointed Sh.Satish Kumar Yadav, surveyor and loss assessor  to inspect the accidental vehicle and to assess the loss.

7.                          As per allegations of the complainant, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.6,30,000/-, but however, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,28,000/-, out of which he had recommended wreck value without papers Rs.1,50,000/- and after deducting the less policy clause of Rs.2,000/- he assessed the loss to the extent of Rs4,78,000/-, but however, the same has not been paid to the complainant.

8.                          The perusal of evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has relied upon the letter Ex.C6 by which the claim of the complainant was closed on account of recalculation Nil not confirmed.  The complainant has claimed the amount of compensation on account of loss/damage of his vehicle on the basis of report of the surveyor Satish Kumar, which has been placed on record as Ex.C7. The perusal of Ex.C7 reveals that it does not bear the signature of the surveyor nor his office seal. Similarly, the Ex.C8 also does not bear the signature and seal of Satish Kumar Yadav, surveyor and loss assessor. So, Ex.C7 cannot be relied upon.

9.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has neither adduced any evidence in support of his defence pleas nor it has furnished the affidavit of official of the OP in order to prove its defence plea and even it has also not placed on record the report of the surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and nor it has admitted/denied the report Ex.C7.

10.                        So, under these circumstances, the claim cannot be settled on the basis of unsigned report Ex.C7, report of the surveyor. Since, the OP has not repudiated the claim of the complainant and only closed the file, so it will be in the fitness of things, if the present complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OP to reopen the claim file and to decide the same on merits.

11.                        In view of the above discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint with a direction to the Op to re-open the claim file and to examine the report of the surveyor Satish Kumar Yadav, if the same is duly signed and is on the record of the OP and thereafter to settle and pay the claim on the basis of surveyor report as per the terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Op is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:03.06.2019                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                         Member                                                             

              DCDRF, Sirsa           DCDRF, Sirsa