Haryana

Ambala

CC/348/2016

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Chetan Chauhan

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                        Complaint No.348 of 2016.

                                        Date of institution:-05.09.2016.

                                        Date of decision: - 21.02.2018.

Gurpreet Singh aged about 32 years son of Shri Malkit Singh resident of village & post office- Babyal Tehsil & District Ambala.

                                                           ...Complainant.

                Versus

National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office - 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                            …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

                Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.        

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                  

               

Present: -  Sh.J.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh.R.K.Vig, Advocate for opposite party.

       

Order

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Car Indigo bearing registration No.HR-01Y-4792 and the same was got insured with OP vide policy No.25331031140159948915 having validity from 18.01.2015 to 17.01.2016. On 29.10.2015 when the complainant was coming from Delhi alongwith his friend Lakhwinder Singh and when they reached near Shahabad on G.T.Road at about 5.30 p.m. due to some mechanical defect the car struck with the railing of the road and his friend Lakhwinder Singh died.  The police recorded DDR No.41 dated 29.10.2015 regarding this. There was no fault of any person in the accident. The car was also got totally damaged in the accident. After intimation to the insurance company the surveyor of the company inspected the car and asked to get the same repaired, therefore, the complainant took the car to the Metro Motors, Mohra District Ambala and further submitted the desired document with OP for the early settlement of the claim. The complainant visited the OP many a times for settlement of the claim but the OP always put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the OP but to no avail. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C/A and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C6.

2.             On notice OP appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing its reply wherein it has been submitted that the complainant himself is liable for non-settlement of the claim because it was his duty to inform the insurance company in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage but the complainant had informed the company on 12.12.2015 after a gap of one month & 14 days qua the loss of the vehicle in question despite the fact that the incident had taken place on 29.10.2015. In the interim motor survey report Mr.Vikas Kohli had assessed the loss to the on Net Loss Basis for Rs.1,34,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy (without RC). The complainant was asked to submit documents vide letters dated 09.06.2016, 18.08.2018 and 15.09.2016 and when requisite documents were not supplied then his claim was closed vide letter dated 15.09.2016. The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, he is not entitled for any claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R9.  

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

4.             In the present case the OP has closed the claim of the complainant on the ground of non-submission of documents by the complainant as demanded vide letters dated 09.06.2016, 18.08.2016 & 15.09.2016. However, the Op in its reply has submitted that the surveyor in his interim report has assessed the loss on Net Loss Basis for Rs.1,34,000/- (without RC) but perusal of the Annexure R6 reveals that Net loss was Rs.1,59,000/- but the insurance company has  deducted Rs.25,000/- as Wreck Value/ salvage of the car and concluded the liability as Rs.1,34,000/-. The insurance company has not explained as to how an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deducted. Moreover, the delay in intimation as alleged by the insurance company in the present complaint is not germane rather it shows that the OP is trying to avoid the genuine claim of the complainant on technical issue of delay intimation. It is common knowledge that a person who got damaged his vehicle in an accident may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. The present claim relates to accident and not theft therefore, However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. It is a settled principle of law that the decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act. The Investigator in his report has alleged that Net loss to the vehicle was Rs.1,59,000/-, therefore, in our opinion it would be justified if we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,59,000/- without deducting the amount on account of salvage.

5.             Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the insurance company has wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant. The present complaint is allowed with cost which is assessed as Rs.5,000/-. The OP is further directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/-  to the complainant alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization subject to furnishing the subrogation letter/indemnity bond in favour of the insurance company.  The Op would keep the salvage with them.

 

 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: 21.02.2018

 

                                                               

                          D.N. ARORA                     

                            PRESIDENT            

 

                                  PUSHPENDER KUMAR      

                                         MEMBER

       

                                          ANAMIKA GUPTA     

                                                    MEMBER