Haryana

Karnal

CC/115/2018

Hemant Monga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kanwar Preet Singh

05 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 115 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.11.05.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 05.12.2019

 

Hemant Monga son of Shri Paramjeet Monga resident of house no.283-R, Model Town, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Division office, Meera Ghati Chowk, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present Shri Karan Preet Advocate for complainant.

                Shri R.S.Mann Advocate for opposite party.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR05AF-4455 from OP, vide policy no.261301/31/2018/1947, valid from 22.05.2017 to 21.05.2018. The vehicle was insured for Rs.3,70,000/- as total value. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on G.T. Road Karnal on 23.09.2017 and in this regard one FIR no.966, dated 24.09.2017 was also lodged against the driver Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Chand who was driving the vehicle under section 279,338, 304 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Karnal and intimation was also given accordingly. The complainant took the vehicle on superdari on 15.12.2017 from the court of Shri Hemant Yadav, Learned ACJM, Karnal and after that the complainant lodged an claim for the loss of the vehicle due to the accident and all the necessary formalities was completed on 26.12.2017 and all documents in this regard was also given by the complainant. OP appointed a surveyor for investigation of the vehicle. The surveyor estimated the loss of Rs.9,25,820/- which was more than the sum assured so the surveyor appointed on the vehicle told to the complainant, this vehicle is beyond repair and is total loss, so the complainant could get the claim on the abovesaid vehicle amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- insured value. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP so many times for settlement of the claim but OP did not settle the claim. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.04.2018 to the OP in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the O.D. claim filed by the complainant was duly processed, however, during investigation, it was found that there was/is clear violation of terms and conditions of the Policy as at the time of accident son of Hemant Monga namely Sarthak Monga, who is minor was driving the insured car, it has also come to the knowledge of the OP during the investigation that in order to avoid huge amount of award in MACT cases, the complainant in connivance with the local police has replaced the driver in place of Sarthak by one Sanjiv Kumar. The OP has already made an complaint/request for re-investigation of the case on 04.09.2018 and the reinvestigation is under process, that is why, the OD claim is still pending and that will be processed or settled after completion of the investigation/decision of the criminal case as well as MACT cases. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 23.05.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Dinesh Kumar Jain Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 and closed the evidence on 30.10.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR05AF-4455 from OP. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on G.T. Road Karnal on 23.09.2017 and in this regard one FIR no.966, dated 24.09.2017 was also lodged against the driver Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Chand who was driving the vehicle. The intimation was also sent to the OP in this regard. The complainant took the vehicle on superdari on 15.12.2017 from the court of Shri Hemant Yadav, Learned ACJM, Karnal and after that the complainant lodged an claim for the loss of the vehicle due to the accident and all the necessary formalities was completed on 26.12.2017 and all documents in this regard was also given by the complainant. OP appointed a surveyor for investigation of the vehicle. The surveyor estimated the loss of Rs.9,25,820/- which was more than the sum assured so the surveyor appointed on the vehicle told to the complainant, this vehicle is beyond repair and is total loss, so the complainant could get the claim on the abovesaid vehicle amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- insured value. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP so many times for settlement of the claim but OP did not settle the claim.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the O.D. claim filed by the complainant was duly processed, however, during investigation, it was found that there was/is clear violation of terms and conditions of the Policy as at the time of accident son of Hemant Monga namely Sarthak Monga, who is minor was driving the insured car, it has also come to the knowledge of the OP during the investigation that in order to avoid huge amount of award in MACT cases, the complainant in connivance with the local police has replaced the driver in place of Sarthak by one Sanjiv Kumar. The OP has already made an complaint/request for re-investigation of the case on 04.09.2018 and the reinvestigation is under process, that is why, the OD claim is still pending and that will be processed or settled after completion of the investigation/decision of the criminal case as well as MACT cases.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that at the time of accident, Sarthak Monga minor son of the complainant was driving the insured car and it was clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

9.             Learned counsel of the OP argued that Sarthak Monga had caused the alleged accident and he also suffered severe injuries in the said accident. The complainant in connivance with the local police has replaced the driver in place of Sarthak Monga by one Sanjeev Hemant. Infact, Sanjiv Kumar was not driving the car at that time.

10.            An formal FIR was lodged by the police on the statement of Chanderpal and after completion all the formalities report under section 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the police before the learned Illaqa Magistrate against Sanjiv Kumar driver. On the request of Deputy Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. matter has been re-investigated by the local police and during investigation statement of Chanderpal had been recorded and investigating agency came on the conclusion that Sanjiv Kumar was the driver at the time of accident. Moreover, as per MACT case Ex.OP2, filed by victims in the abovesaid MACT case, Sanjiv Kumar impleaded as driver of the car in question. There is no documentary evidence to show that at the time of accident Sanjiv Kumar was not driver.

11.            In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The insured vehicle of the complainant has been totally damaged in the said accident. Hence complainant is entitled for the IDV of the vehicle.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car in question i.e. Rs.3,70,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.12.2019                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member