BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:35 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 02.02.2015.
Date of Decision:-22.06.2017
Chandan Singh son of Shri Indraj, resident of village Mauri, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Loharu Road, Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- The General Manager, Insurance Co. Limited, Divn. No. 10 flat No. 101-106, N-1, BMC House, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
- The Manager, M/s Jagmohan Motors Limited, Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- The Manager, M/s Jagmohan Motors Limited, Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri Sandeep Lakra, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 1 & 2.
Shri Satender Ghangas, Advocate for OP no. 3 & 4.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased maruti A lot car bearing chasis No. 1684690 engine no. 4443343 registration no. HR-19F-1003 from the show room of the OP no. 3 in the year 2010 and said car got insured by the OP no. 3 with the said insurance company vide policy bearing no. 35101031126131743744, which was valid from 26.07.2012 to 25.07.2013. It is alleged that the said car was met with an accident on 28.02.2013 and intimation of the said accident was given to the insurance company and surveyor was appointed, who had inspected the spot. It is alleged that all the formalities was completed by the complainant but the OPs did not pay any heed. The complainant had also sent written requests to get the amount of the insurance of the car but all in vain. It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he had to suffer mental agony, pain and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs no. 1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the complainant has given intimation after a delay of 15 days of accident. It is further submitted that the complainant did not cooperate the surveyor and investigator due to the reasons best known to him. It is submitted that the complainant did not fulfill the requirements of the answering respondents and failed to reply the queries raised by surveyor, investigator and the answering respondents. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OPs no. 3 & 4 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not claimed any claim or compensation from the answering respondents. It is submitted that the assertions made are misconceived when the claim, if any, was payable by the insurance company, there was no question for the complainant to visit the answering respondents as alleged by him. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3 & 4 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party no. 1 & 2 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the car of the complainant was damaged in a road accident on 28.2.2013. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP no. 1 & 2 and the complainant completed all the formalities required by the OP no. 1 & 2. But the Ops did not pay the claim to the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 16.1.2014 for the payment of Rs. 1,77,148/- to the complainant with interest etc.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured for IDV of Rs. 1,77,148/-. The complainant intimated the OPs regarding the alleged incident after the delay of 15 days. The OPs deputed the surveyor. The surveyor vide his report dated 26.8.2013 assessed the loss at Rs. 64,739/-. The OPs also deputed the Major Mehar Singh investigator to inquire into the mode of accident. The investigator submitted his report dated 12.07.013 Annexure R-5. Taking into account the report Annexure R5 of the investigator the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 16.12.2013 Annexure R-1, on the grounds detailed in the said repudiation letter. The counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, suppressed the material facts and did not provide the clarification and documents required by the surveyor and investigator. As per the photographs of the spot, does not match the impact on the damaged vehicle. The claim of the complainant is rightly repudiated by the OPs no. 1 & 2. The counsel for the Ops no. 1 & 2 relied upon the following judgment:-
I Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mahender Jat [2015] CJ 181 of Honble National Commission, New Delhi.
9. Learned counsel for the OPs no. 3 & 4 reiterated the contents of the reply.
10. In the context of the pleadings and arguments, we have examined the relevant material on the record. From the careful perusal of the written statement of the OPs, it cannot be concluded on which ground the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. The contention of the OPs no. 1 & 2 given in Para No. 5 of the preliminary objection seems to be ambiguous.
11. In the surveyor’s report the loss has been assessed at Rs. 64,739/-. It is not clear from the pleadings of the complainant when he intimated the OP regarding the accident in question. The OP has taken the plea that there is delay of 15 days in the intimation of the alleged accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, as reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1(SC), it has been stated that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The claim of the complainant could have been settled on non-standard basis. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Ops no. 1 & 2. The Ops no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the 75 per cent of the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor to the complainant. The Ops no. 1 & 2 are directed to comply with the order within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops no. 1 & 2 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till the date of payment. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 22.06.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
