Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/24/2022

Nishant - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIAC - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Paposa

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                    Complaint Case No. :  24 of 2022

                                                                     Date of Institution    : 28.01.2022

                                                                     Date of decision:      : 30.07.2024

 

Nishant son of Sh. Devi Dayal R/o village Bichla Bazar Masto ki Gali, Bhiwani Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant 

 

                                                    Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its branch office opposite Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, Railway Road, Bhiwani through its Manager/authorized signatory.

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

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

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Ravinder Paposa, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA,  PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of a Fiat Car bearing registration no. GJ12BR-0016 having model 2012, got it insured comprehensively from OP for a period from 16.08.2020 to 15.08.2021. It is alleged that on 21.02.2021, at about 7:30 a.m., complainant alongwith his friends Ravi, Ashwani, Vicky was going to Bhiwani from Kalanaur, when they reached near village Phoolpura-Bamla then a Pick-up Dala bearing regn. no. HR 58B 4504 take over his vehicle and in the meantime tyre of vehicle burst and vehicle of complainant struck with it and due to this impact, vehicle of complainant got completely damaged. OP was informed. Upon which, surveyor was deputed and car was brought to Mukku Auto Works, Bhiwani for repairs and estimate was prepared for Rs.6,90,091/- i.e more than value of the car.  Claim was lodged with the OP. Shiva Claim Bureau, Bhiwani was deputed for investigation. Thereafter, Surveyor Sh. S.K. Agarwal was deputed who assessed loss to the tune of Rs.3,17,375/- but the OP company did not make the payment rather repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14.10.2021. 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 has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.3,54,375/- as IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of loss till payment. Further to pay Rs.80,000/- on account of compensation for harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint, locus standi, estoppel and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that upon receiving of surveyor’s report dated 20.08.2021, it came into notice of OP company that there was lot of differences in damages as shown in spot photographs and photographs during repairs in workshop. It seems that more damages were implanted in order to bring the vehicle in total loss zone. The insured vehicle was dashed into reared of the Pick UP vehicle, however, there were heavy damages on upper side of the vehicle as well as on inner side of the vehicle, thereby not justifying the damages as per the cause and nature of the accident. Hence, the claim of complainant was repudiated under intimation to the complainant vide letter dated 14.10.2021. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence, affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Ms. Anjana Mistry, authorized person of OP alongwith documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-15 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.

6.                 At the outset, perusal of the repudiation letter (Annexure R-1) reveals that claim to the complainant has been denied on the ground that there was lot of differences in damages as shown in spot photographs and photographs during repairs in workshop. It seems that more damages were implanted in order to bring the vehicle in total loss zone. The insured vehicle was dashed into reared of the Pick UP vehicle, however, there were heavy damages on upper side of the vehicle as well as on inner side of the vehicle, thereby not justifying the damages as per the cause and nature of the accident. To strengthen his case, on the above point(s), the OP company has placed on record photographs Annexure C-4 to Annexure C-15 reveals.

7.                 It is pertinent to mention here that the said photographs are not having any date and time from where it could be sustained that the same were taken before the repairs and after the repairs were done.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that repudiation of the claim of complainant on such ground(s) was not justified by OP insurance company. From the surveyor’s report (Annexure R-2) it is evident that loss to the vehicle on repair basis was Rs.3,17,355/- and the vehicle, as per insurance policy (Annexure C-2) is having   IDV as Rs.3,54,375/-.  As such, we have concluded that the vehicle is having total loss and no purpose would be served on repairing the vehicle in question. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.3,54,375/- (Rs. Three lacs fifty four thousand three hundred seventy five) as IDV of the vehicle in question, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation and completing all other formalities qua transfer of vehicle in question etc. in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of copy of the order received.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on account of compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced.

Dated: 30.07.2024.