Haryana

Sonipat

CC/411/2015

Parmod Singh S/o Risal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Singh

23 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.411 of 2015

                                Instituted on:09.11.2015

                                Date of order:23.05.2016

 

Parmod Singh son of Risal Singh, resident of H.No.1305, Sector 14, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

 

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 204-R, Ist Floor, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                           ...Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Jitender Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. RP Antil, Adv. for respondent.

    

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Truck No.HR-69/8878 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 31.1.2013 to 30.1.2014 with IDV of Rs.10 lacs.  Unfortunately the said truck of the complainant has met with an accident on 30.1.2014 at 9 pm and was badly damaged.  DD No.14 was lodged with PS Kundli, Distt. Sonepat.  The complainant has also informed the respondent regarding the accident and has lodged the claim with the respondent by completing and submitting all the required documents.  The estimated loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,33,255/-. Shri Ramesh Saroha by taking the undue advantage of simplicity and illiteracy of the complainant, took the signatures of the complainant on some documents and on the assurance of the said Ramesh Saroha, the complainant  got his vehicle repaired and thereafter the complainant has requested the respondent so many times to settle his claim, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  The complainant has served upon the respondent a legal notice dated 1.9.2015, but the said legal notice has also not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

 

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent legally and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent while doing so.  The allegation regarding obtaining the signature of the complainant by Ramesh Saroha is denied by the respondent.  After receipt of the information regarding the accident, the respondent deputed Shri Om Parkash Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to investigate the matter, who visited the site of accident on 31.1.2014  and there was no vehicle lying in the accidental condition and the said surveyor has submitted his report on 4.2.2014.  From the report of surveyor Om Parkash Mehta, it is clear that the accident took place on 31.1.2014 after noon by which time, the insurance policy has already lapsed on 30.1.2014 and the complainant has no insurable interest in his vehicle on 31.1.2014 and the claim of the complainant rightly, correctly and legally was repudiated by the respondent. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, harassment and humiliation at the hands of the respondent and there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent.  Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued his case vehemently that the complainant is the registered owner of Truck No.HR-69/8878 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 31.1.2013 to 30.1.2014 with IDV of Rs.10 lacs.  Unfortunately the said truck of the complainant has met with an accident on 30.1.2014 at 9 pm and was badly damaged.  DD No.14 was lodged with PS Kundli, Distt. Sonepat.  The complainant has also informed the respondent regarding the accident and has lodged the claim with the respondent by completing and submitting all the required documents.  The estimated loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,33,255/-. Shri Ramesh Saroha by taking the undue advantage of simplicity and illiteracy of the complainant, took the signatures of the complainant on some documents and on the assurance of the said Ramesh Saroha, the complainant  got his vehicle repaired and thereafter the complainant has requested the respondent so many times to settle his claim, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

 

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent legally and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent while doing so.  The allegation regarding obtaining the signature of the complainant by Ramesh Saroha is denied by the respondent.  After receipt of the information regarding the accident, the respondent deputed Shri Om Parkash Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to investigate the matter, who visited the site of accident on 31.1.2014  and there was no vehicle lying in the accidental condition and the said surveyor has submitted his report on 4.2.2014.  From the report of surveyor Om Parkash Mehta, it is clear that the accident took place on 31.1.2014 after noon by which time, the insurance policy has already lapsed on 30.1.2014 and the complainant has no insurable interest in his vehicle on 31.1.2014 and the claim of the complainant rightly, correctly and legally was repudiated by the respondent. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, harassment and humiliation at the hands of the respondent and there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent.

          But we find no force in the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent.

          The complainant himself has placed on record the copy of surveyor report of Manoj Puri dated 25.5.2014 as Ex.C2.  In column no.8, page 2, the said surveyor Manoj Puri has mentioned the date of accident as 30.1.2014.

          At page no.3, note has been given by the said surveyor that the spot survey was also carried out at the place of mishap by surveyor Om Parkash Mehta.

 

          Om Parkash Mehta Surveyor and Loss Assessor in his Confidential report dated 4.2.2014 Ex.R2 has mentioned that I visited the spot on 31.1.2014 and took photographs of the spot and when the papers were checked, it was found that the insurance date of this vehicle has already matured on 30.1.2014-Night.  I made enquiries from other people of the tea stall about the occurrence of the accident, who told that when they came in the morning at 6 am, there was no vehicle lying accidented in the morning.

          As per the respondent, the policy starts w.e.f. 31.1.2013 midnight to 30.1.2014.  In our view, if the accident have caused on 31.1.2014, in that event, the insurance company should not carried out the final survey which was conducted by Manoj Puri and he submitted his report dated 25.5.2014.

 

          The opinion given by Om Parkash Mehta in his confidential report dated 4.2.2014 is totally based on hearsay evidence, because, he has not placed on record any statement of any person or any other affidavit.  Even the name of the tea stall or the name of the owner of the tea stall is not mentioned by Om Parkash Mehta in his report.  So, the report of Om Parkash Mehta which is based on hearsay evidence, has a very little evidentiary value in the eyes of law and the same cannot be considered in any manner.  In our view, the complainant has been able to prove that the accident has taken place on 30.1.2014 at 9 pm and in that accident, the complainant has suffered a huge loss.  The surveyor Manoj Puri has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.94500/- and in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor Manoj Puri and it has already been held by the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission that the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  So, taking into consideration the law of the Hon’ble High Courts and also taking into consideration the report of Manoj Puri vide which he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.94500/-, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.94500/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                             (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                                  DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:23.05.2016