BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.210 of 2016.
Date of institution:-26.09.2016.
Date of decision :- 23.01.2020
Sachin son of Sh.Sat Naryan, resident of Birwan Pana, near Halu Bazar, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
...Complainant.
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, Circular Road, Ghanta Ghar, Opp. State Bank of India, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Senior Branch Manager.
…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh. Nagender Singh, President.
Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member
Present: Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Satender, Proxy counsel for OP.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of car bearing registration No.HR-16P-9726 and the same was got insured with opposite party vide policy No.420303/6100004732/15 valid from 26.11.2015 to 25.11.2016 by paying a sum of Rs.10674/- after allowing 20 % NCB on the declaration. On 11.02.2016, the vehicle met with an accident and regarding this claim No.620303/6190000207/15 was lodged with the opposite party and requisite papers were also submitted with it but the opposite party did not settle the claim and sent a letter dated 29.03.2016 to the complainant, which was duly replied on 04.04.2016. The complainant visited the opposite party number of times but his claim was declared as No claim with the excuse that your representation has not been upto the satisfaction of the undersigned. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered mental agony and wrongful delay in settling the claim. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the opposite party but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite party clearly deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal, locus standi and suppression of material facts from this Forum etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that the car of the complainant was insured with it for the period 26.11.2015 to 25.11.2016 after getting No Claim Bonus of 20 %. The insured declared value was Rs.4,44,720/-. After the intimation regarding damage of the car, surveyor was appointed, who in his report dated 04.03.2016 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.23,370/- after less depreciation, excess clause etc. Thereafter, the opposite party contacted the previous insurance company i.e. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited but the Nil NCB was intimated due to change in owner. Previous owner of the vehicle was Smt.Ritu Sharma and the previous policy was transferred by the complainant in his name vide endorsement dated 14.04.2015 and as such the complainant was not entitled to get No Claim Bonus. The complainant was got served with letter dated 29.03.2016 but his reply was not found satisfactory, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated and regarding this intimation was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 20.06.2016. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7 and closed the evidence on 30.08.2017 whereas the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R11 and closed the evidence on 27.02.2019.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsels for opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. It is established on the case file that the earlier Smt.Ritu Sharma was owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-16P-9726 and the insurance policy qua the said vehicle was issued in her validity from 26.11.2014 to 25.11.2015 (Annexure R5). Thereafter, the vehicle was sold to complainant and the insurance policy, thereof was also transferred in favour of the complainant for the remaining period i.e. from 14.04.2015 to 25.11.2015 (Annexure R5/A). The insurance company after considering the document Annexure R5/A issued the policy (Annexure R10) having validity for the period from 26.11.2015 to 25.11.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company has come with the plea that due to transfer of policy in the name of complainant from the previous owner, the complainant was not entitled for the NCB of 20 %. The insurance company after considering the document Annexure R5/A i.e. the insurance policy issued by Royal Sundaram for the period from 14.04.2015 to 25.11.2015 issued the new policy Annexure R10 having validity for the period from 24.11.2015 to 26.112.2015. Perusal of Annexure R5 and Annexure R5/A show that neither the previous owner nor the complainant have ever availed the facility of NCB from the previous insurance policy i.e. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company. Moreover, it was the prime duty of the opposite party/insurance company to verify whether a policy issued for the period from 14.04.2015 to 25.11.2015 can be considered for the issuance of NCB. It is strange that on one hand the opposite party increasing the business has issued the insurance policy Annexure R10 after receiving handsome premium to the tune of Rs.10674/- from the complainant and on the other hand the claim regarding the damage of the vehicle, during the subsistence of the policy, was lodged then the insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has wrongly and illegally availed the NCB of 20 %. The plea taken by the opposite party is not tenable and the same is hereby rejected.
7. In the present case, the surveyor was deputed by the opposite party/insurance company and according to the report of surveyor, Annexure-R2, he has assessed the net loss amounting to the tune of Rs.23730/-. The surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has rightly relied upon the case laws titled as Davender Malhotra Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Another 2016 (3) CLT 525 (NC) and Jose Manuel De Souza Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2016 (4) CLT (Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 171 wherein it has been held that It is an established legal proposition that the report made by the surveyor, who is a professional in his field, cannot be disbelieved, unless there are cogent and convincing reason to do so. Since there is nothing on record to brush aside the report of the surveyor, therefore, this Forum has left with no other option but to rely upon the report of surveyor.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite party/insurance company to pay Rs.23730/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order. 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 in open Forum.
Dated: - 23.01.2020.
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
