Haryana

Ambala

CC/245/2017

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Ved Prakash

26 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                        Complaint No.245 of 2017.

                                        Date of institution:-17.07.2017.

                                        Date of decision: - 26.11.2018.

Anil Kumar Bansal son of late Sh.Muna Lal resident of H.No.1668, Sector 10, HB Colony, Ambala City.

 

                                                              ...Complainant.

                Versus

National Insurance Company, Ambala Cantt. through its Divisional Manager.

                                                            …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh.Dina Nath Arora, President. 

                Sh.Pushpender Kumar, Member.         

                   Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.              

               

Present: -  Sh.V.P.Kaushal, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh.V.P.Gupta, Advocate for opposite party.

       

Order

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Car Indigo car Manza bearing registration No.HR-01AD-4240 and the same was got insured with OPs vide policy No.25331031150110020068 having validity from 21.11.2016 to 20.11.2017.(wrongly mantion in the complaint validity period 18.11.2015 to 17.11.2016) On 25.11.2016 vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and got badly damaged. The complainant immediately informed the OPs regarding this accident. On this it deputed surveyor who clicked photographs. Thereafter, complainant got the same repaired from Metro Motor by spending a sum of Rs.32416/-. The complainant deposited the necessary documents and also completed all the formalities but despite that the OP has failed to release the legal and valid OD claim.The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C22.

2.             On notice OP appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts from this Forum etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that intimation regarding accident was received through one Dheeraj Kumar on 26.11.2016. Since the intimation was not given on 25.11.2016, therefore, no spot survey was got done but despite that surveyor Ravi Kumar was deputed. Keeping in view the financial interest of the complainant, his claim was lodged and processed bondafidely by OP. The vehicle was shifted to workshop prior to intimation to the OP thereby depriving it to conduct spot survey to ascertain genuineness of the accident, its place and damages.  The surveyor in his report dated 28.11.2016 has observed that cause and nature of accident as alleged by the insured in the claim form as per claim from while reversing the car, the car hit with the big stone. Thus the vehicle got damaged. It was further observed by the surveyor that the nature of accident not coincide with the damage as rear tyre of the vehicle hit the stone then first there is bend then crack. There is crack only due to wear and tear. There is no spot report as well as no photographs of the damage vehicle at site of accident. In evidence thereof please treat the claim as no claim as the nature of accident not coincide. However, I assessed the loss for litigation purposes. After that the claim file and surveyor report were duly scrutinized and perused and the claim was repudiated bonafidely and the same was duly conveyed. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R7.

3.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

4.             The complainant has with the plea that the damage to the vehicle in accident had occurred during the subsistence of the policy in question. After the accident the vehicle was got repaired after giving intimation to the insurance company who had deputed the surveyor. The surveyor in his report dated 28.11.2016 has opined that cause and nature of accident as alleged by the insured in the claim form as per claim from while reversing the car, the car hit with the big stone. Thus the vehicle got damaged. It was further observed by the surveyor that the nature of accident not coincide with the damage as rear tyre of the vehicle hit the stone then first there is bend then crack. There is crack only due to wear and tear. There is no spot report as well as no photographs of the damage vehicle at site of accident. In evidence thereof please treat the claim as no claim as the nature of accident not coincide. However, I assessed the loss for litigation purposes.  The OP insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the damage as narrated by the complainat in the accident does not coincide and the learned counsel for the Op has drawn the attention of this Forum towards the photographs Annexure R6 and R7 clicked by the surveyor on 26.11.2016 in the afternoon after receiving the intimation on the same day during the course of investigation. From the perusal of these photographs it is ample clear that there is no damage either at front or back side rather case of the complainant is that the damage to the bumper etc. caused while the vehicle was being reversed then a big stone hit the same. This version of the complainant is not proved on the case file because there is no damage on the bumper as the photographs Annexure R6 and Annexure R7. Further more,The complaint himself attached various photographs A\annexure C-16 to C-22 but none of the photograph reflect any damage to the bumper as alleged by the complainant in the claim form as annexure R-1 dated 26.11.2016 even service record dated 25.11.016 annexure C-14 there is no complaint of damage of the alleged rear bumper. Surveyor is an independent person and his report is based on actual facts and it is also admitted fact that vehicle was not inspected at the spot as the same had been taken to the workshop on the next date. The complainant has not rebutted the survey report given by Ravi Kumar Gupta Annexure R4 by not cross-examine him to falsify his report. The surveyor report cannot be disbelieved until and unless there is contradictory on the case file. On this point reliance can be taken from case laws titled as Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in 2009 (8) SCC page 507  wherein it has been held that it is an established legal preposition that the report made by the surveyor who is a professional in his field cannot be disbelieved unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so.  The version of the complainant is also not believable because there is every apprehension that he might have got repaired the normal wear and tear and in order to take the disadvantage of the policy in question has filed the present complaint by twisting the real facts.

5.                     In view of the above facts and circumstances this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has failed prove any deficiency in service on the part of op by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 26.11.2018

 

                                                               

PUSHPENDER KUMAR      (DR.SUSHMA GARG)        D.N. ARORA MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT