Haryana

Kurukshetra

232/2018

Mahavir Parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Rohtash Jangam

23 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.232 of 2018

Date of Instt.:30.10.2018

Date of Decision:23.11.2021.

 

Mahavir Parshad (aged about 51 years) son of Shri Ram Dayal, resident of house no.22, Ward No. 1, Sugar Mill Colony, Ladwa Road, Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. .

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.National Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager/Authorized signatory.

2. National Insurance Co.Limited, Maruit Vertical Office- 10,l 803A, Tower C, Konnect is Building Bhavbhuti Marg, New Minto Bridge, Opposite New Delhi Railway Station, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi 110002 through Manager.

3. Karnal Motors Pvt.Limited (authorized Maruti Dealer), showroom @ Workshop III, Sector 2, Industrial Area, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra  through its Proprietor/owner.

4.Er.Surinder K.Goyal Surveyor/Loss Assessor MIG-285, Sector 13, Kurukshetra.

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri Rohtash Jangam Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Gaurav Gupta Advocate for OP No.1 and 2.

                OP No.3 and 4 ex parte.

ORDER

         

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Sh.Mahavir  against National Insurance Company Limited etc, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that  on the assurance of the Ops, the complainant became  ready to take the policy of the insurance bearing No. 35101031176140709628 from 6.10.2017 to 5.10.2018 for  car bearing registration No. HR78B-6472 for the sum assured Rs.6.00 lacs. The Ops also received the premium of Rs.18591/- including taxes. The policy in question is cashless one. It is  further stated that on 14.07.2-18 the said car met with the accident in the area of Police Station Virndavan, District Mathura and FIR No.1049  of 2018 u/s 279/338 IPC was registered regarding the said accident. The  car was being driven by Shri Devinder Singh son of Nasib Singh resident of village Landha Tehsil Barara District Ambala who is having valid driving license to drive the said car. The intimation regarding accident was given to the Ops.  In the said accident the car was badly damaged. The Ops appointed OP No.4 as surveyor to assess the damage/loss of the car. The complainant filed claim with the Ops and the claim form was furnished by the officials of the OP No.3 through whom the insurance was got done. The complainant got the said car repaired  from OP No.3 and paid Rs.12558/- and again got the car repaired from Maha Laxmi Motors Shahabad Markanda District Kurukshetra and spent Rs.51404/-  and in this way the complainant spent the sum of Rs.63962/- for the repair of the said car. The OP No.4 refused to allow the cashless facility on the claim of the vehicle vide letter  dated 25.7.2018.The OP no.3 vide letter dated 22.7.2018 has 8intimated the complainant that the OP No.4 has declined the claim of repair charges to the complainant and the Ops have not paid the said amount of Rs.63962/- to the complainant which  amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint  alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.63962/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation for the mental harassment caused to him.

 

3.             Upon notice OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that  on getting intimation of loss of complainant’s car, company appointed IRDA approved   Surveyor Sh.Surinder Kumar Goyal for survey of the vehicle and assessment of the  loss, who submitted his detailed report dated 11.11.2018, according to which net liability of the OP is Rs.11502/-  but the complainant is not entitled for the same due to the following reasons

i)              That cause of loss mentioned by the complainant in the claim form, claim intimation and other documents are contrary. In the claim form it is mentioned that ..when we were going from Shahabad to Sugar Mill, an ahead going vehicle applied sudden brakes and our car hit with the vehicle..” But on going through the FIR No.1049 dated 15.7.2018, lodged at P.S. Vrindavan it is observed that the complainant vehicle hit a parked car near Chomuha , Vrindavan (UP).

ii)              That Date, time and place of loss mentioned by the complainant in the claim form, claim intimation and other documents were contrary to FIR. Complainant has mentioned that his vehicle met with an accident at 10:15amj on 15.7.2018 near Shahabad District Kurukshetra (Haryana) but on going through the FIR No.1049 dated 15.7.2018, lodged at P.S. Vrindavan it is observed that the complainant vehicle met with an accident on 14.7.2018 at around 21::pm near village Chomuha, Vrindavan (UP).

iii)     The complainant had not got done the spot survey. Vrindavan

iv)     That the complainant had submitted the towing bill dated 16.7.2018 from Laddi Crane services for towing of the vehicle No. HR-78B-6472 from Shahabad to  Pipli. Since the vehicle had met with an accident near village Chomuha Vrindavan and not in Shahabad, so how towing of vehicle from Shahabad to Pipli is possible. Moreover, bill is without date of towing, without registration number of towing vehicle and not acceptable.

 

v)     That as per FIR No. 1049,  dated 15.7.2018, lodged in PS Vrindavan, Mr.Sikander Verma son of Manjit was seriously injured in the accident but the complainant has mentioned in the claim intimation that neither any third party injury to any one  nor third party involved. Further, the complainant has not disclosed the information related to FIR/Police report to claim intimation form and mentioned No against relevant column.

vi)     The complainant has not disclosed the information related to FIR/Police report in the claim form.

vii)    The complainant  has took away his vehicle from M/s Karnal Motors giving letter dated NIL without information the OP or surveyor. Moreover, he has not given company surveyor  any opportunity to re-inspect the vehicle for the repairs carried out at Karnal Motors.  The Ops also sent letters dated 3.12.2018 and 31.12.2018 to clarify the matter enabling OP to take decision and requested to submit the reply alongwith documentary evidence but the complainant has not turned up. 

                Thus, it is submitted that from the above, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions no.8 of the private car package policy and the complainant has violated the  basic  principles of th3e insurance and as such the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 18.01.2019.

4.             OP No.3 was duly served upon but OP No.3 failed to appear and contest the case despite due service. Therefore, OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2018.

5.             OP No.4 firstly appeared on 14.12.2018 and memo of appearance was filed on his behalf by Sh.Gaurav Gupta Advocate but later on the OP No.4 failed to appear on 9.9.2019, therefore, OPNo.4 was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 9.9.20019.

 

6.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence.

7.             On the other hand OP No.1 and 2 in support of their case have filed affidavits Ex.RW1/A  and Ex.RW2/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11 and closed their evidence.

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

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant took  the policy of the insurance bearing No. 35101031176140709628 from 6.10.2017 to 5.10.2018 for  car bearing registration No. HR78B-6472 for the sum assured Rs.6.00 lacs. The Ops also received the premium of Rs.18591/- including taxes. The policy in question is cashless one. It is  argued stated that on 14.07.2-18 the said car met with the accident in the area of Police Station Virndavan, District Mathura and FIR No.1049  of 2018 u/s 279/338 IPC was registered regarding the said accident. The  car was being driven by Shri Devinder Singh son of Nasib Singh resident of village Landha Tehsil Barara District Ambala who is having valid driving license to drive the said car. The intimation regarding accident was given to the Ops.  In the said accident the car was badly damaged. The Ops appointed OP No.4 as surveyor to assess the damage/loss of the car. The complainant filed claim with the Ops and the claim form was furnished by the officials of the OP No.3 through whom the insurance was got done. The complainant got the said car repaired  from OP No.3 and paid Rs.12558/- and again got the car repaired from Maha Laxmi Motors Shahabad Markanda District Kurukshetra and spent Rs.51404/-  and in this way the complainant spent the sum of Rs.63962/- for the repair of the said car. The OP No.4 refused to allow the cashless facility on the claim of the vehicle vide letter dated 25.7.2018.The OP no.3 vide letter dated 22.7.2018 has intimated the complainant that the OP No.4 has declined the claim of repair charges to the complainant and the Ops have not paid the said amount of Rs.63962/- to the complainant which  amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Reliance has been placed on the authorities Sunil Kumar and others
Vs. LIC of India,  Law Finder Doc Id# 775912 and United India Insurance Co. Vs. Bishari Lal Law Finder Doc Id # 779701.

10.            On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that

on getting intimation of loss of complainant’s car, company appointed IRDA approved   Surveyor Sh.Surinder Kumar Goyal for survey of the vehicle and assessment of the loss, who submitted his detailed report dated 11.11.2018, according to which net liability of the OP is Rs.11502/-  but the complainant is not entitled for the reasons that  cause of loss mentioned by the complainant in the claim form, claim intimation and other documents are contrary. In the claim form it is mentioned that “when we were going from Shahabad to Sugar Mill, an ahead going vehicle applied sudden brakes and our car hit with the vehicle.” But on going through the FIR No.1049 dated 15.7.2018, lodged at P.S. Vrindavan it is observed that the complainant vehicle hit a parked car near Chomuha , Vrindavan (UP). It is argued that the that Date, time and place of loss mentioned by the complainant in the claim form, claim intimation and other documents were contrary to FIR. Complainant has mentioned that his vehicle met with an accident at 10:15amj on 15.7.2018 near Shahabad District Kurukshetra (Haryana) but on going through the FIR No.1049 dated 15.7.2018, lodged at P.S. Vrindavan it is observed that the complainant vehicle met with an accident on 14.7.2018 at around 21:pm near village Chomuha, Vrindavan (UP).It is also argued that the complainant had not got done the spot survey. It is again argued that the complainant had submitted the towing bill dated 16.7.2018 from Laddi Crane services for towing of the vehicle No. HR-78B-6472 from Shahabad to  Pipli. Since the vehicle had met with an accident near village Chomuha Vrindavan and not in Shahabad, so how towing of vehicle from Shahabad to Pipli is possible. Moreover, bill is without date of towing, without registration number of towing vehicle and not acceptable. It is argued that  as per FIR No. 1049,  dated 15.7.2018, lodged in PS Vrindavan, Mr.Sikander Verma son of Manjit was seriously injured in the accident but the complainant has mentioned in the claim intimation that neither any third party injury to any one  nor third party involved. Further, the complainant has not disclosed the information related to FIR/Police report to claim intimation form and mentioned No against relevant column.   The complainant has not disclosed the information related to FIR/Police report in the claim form. It is argued that the    The complainant   took away his vehicle from M/s Karnal Motors giving letter dated NIL without information the OP or surveyor. Moreover, he has not given company surveyor  any opportunity to re-inspect the vehicle for the repairs carried out at Karnal Motors.  The Ops also sent letters dated 3.12.2018 and 31.12.2018 to clarify the matter enabling OP to take decision and requested to submit the reply alongwith documentary evidence but the complainant has not turned up. Thus, it is submitted that from the above, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions no.8 of the private car package policy and the complainant has violated the  basic  principles of the insurance and as such the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 18.01.2019. Reliance has been  placed on United India Insurance Co.Limited Vs. M/s Harchand  Rai Chandan Lal  Law Finder Doc Id # 79540, M/s Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co.Limited and another Finder Doc Id # 785937, M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited and another Finder Doc Id # 219912 and  United India Insurance Co. Limited and others Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills and others Finder Doc Id # 189680..

 

11.            After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to claim amount because insurance of the vehicle as on the date of damages is not in dispute. Damages to the vehicle and lodging of the claim are also not in dispute. The  plea raised on behalf of the Ops is regarding the difference in date time  and manner of accident, yet the fact remains that the vehicle was damaged. Ex.R-1 is surveyor report wherein claim has been assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.11502/- and the surveyor report is a vital document and  it cannot be brushed aside without cogent and convincing reason which is missing in this case. The amount of Rs.11502/- as assessed by the surveyor has not been paid by OP No.1 and 2  and the claim has been repudiated on technical grounds regarding difference in date, time and manner of accident. It is settled law that once the claim is found genuine, the claim should not be declined on technical grounds.  As the damages and insurance to the vehicle are not in dispute, therefore, keeping in view the authorities cited on behalf of the complainant and the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant is found entitled to claim amount of Rs.11502/- alongwith compensation for the mental harassment and litigation expenses. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the OP no.1 and 2 is established. The complaint qua OP No.3 and 4 stands dismissed.

 

12.              As a result of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops No.1 and 2 to make the payment of Rs.11502/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 30.10.2018 till its actual realization. OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay the  compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental harassment and agony caused to complainant  and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. The OP  No.1 and 2 are    further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the Ops No 1 and 2.  The complaint against OP No.3 and 4 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:23.11.2021                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                             President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                            Member.