Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/17/2020

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD

          C.C.No.17 of 2020.                 Date of Instt.:14.01.2020 Date of Order: 04.12.2023.

Sandeep Kumar son of Sh.Rajender Parshad resident of village Chabla Mori Tehsil  & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

          Versus

1.Oriental Insurance Company Limited behind new Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office VII.MP/377.Anna Salai, R-R, Complex IIIrd Floor Teynamepet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, through its authorized signatory.

          ..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before:        Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.                                                               Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.                                                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

Present:       Sh.Amit Kumar Soni for the complainant.                                          Sh.N.D.Mittal, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT;

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant has submitted that he got his vehicle motor cycle bearing  registration No.HR22N-2465 insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.411700/31/2019/ABRE/64364 having validity for the period 20.10.2018 to 19.10.2018; that in the month of June, 2019 the vehicle in question met with an accident; that the complainant intimated about the accident to the OP No.1; that on the instructions of the  OP No.1, the complainant took his damaged motor cycle to Royal Enfield Agency, Fatehabad and got it repaired by spending a sum of Rs.40,000/-; that the complainant paid the amount in question to the agency by his own pocket despite the fact that the motor cycle was fully insured at that time; that the complainant visited the Ops with a request to make the payment of claim but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1/A with documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal and compliant being false and frivolous have been taken. It has been further submitted that the motor cycle in question was previously insured with New India Assurance Company Limited for the period 29.07.2017 to 28.07.2018 and lateron it was insured with Op No.2 for the period from 20.10.2018 to 19.10.2019; that the vehicle in question remained un-insured from 28.07.2018 to 20.10.2018, therefore, it was incumbent upon the agent to get the pre-inspection of the vehicle done  from authorized /competent authority but it has not been done so;  that on receipt of intimation, surveyor was appointed  who in his report had assessed the net payable loss to the tune of Rs.28040/-; that the said amount was not paid due to non submission of pre-inspection report by the complainant despite repeated demands. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. In the end, prayer for dismissing the complaint has been made.  Ops in evidence has tendered affidavits of Sh.S.K.Malhotra, DM as Ex.RW1/A with documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/6.

3.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                          The facts regarding ownership of vehicle, purchasing of insurance policy (Annexure C3) by the complainant from the Ops, damage to the insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy and conducting of survey by the surveyor are need not to be discussed because the Ops have stressed hard on the ground that there was gap between the previous policy and the current policy, therefore, pre-inspection was necessary but the complainant did not submit the same despite repeated requests.

5.                          It is not disputed that insurance is a contract and the terms and conditions of the same are applicable on both the parties. In the present compliant, the complainant has paid the proper premium to the Ops, therefore, we have no hitch to say that in a contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles the issuance of policy becomes effective when premium is received and the insurer cannot postpone the assumption of liability after receipt of premium. The necessary verification of vehicle and the documents should be done before receipt of premium. However, under the said pretext, the insurer cannot postpone the assumption of risk, other than from the date and time of receipt of premium. Otherwise, the insurer would be guilty of abating the use of vehicle in a public place without policy.  The Ops have come with the plea that pre-inspection was to be got done by the broker/agent from the authorized/competent authority. The Ops have received the premium and after acceptance the premium issued the policy in question, therefore, it was for the Ops being authorized/competent authority to verify all the facts and documents. It is pertinent to mention here that the issuance of policy is consequent effect after receipt of premium and in the present compliant, the contract becomes complete and policy becomes operative after issuance of policy. It is not the case of the Ops, the damage to the vehicle in question was not occurred during the currency of the policy. Moreover, the surveyor after physically inspection of the vehicle has furnished his detailed report Annexure R1/5, wherein he has assessed the net payable loss to the tune of Rs.28040/-.  The Ops in their reply has taken another plea that e-mails were sent to the complainant to submit the pre-inspection report of the vehicle but there is nothing on the case file to show that such letters through e-mail were ever either issued to the complainant or were received by him and even no such letter/e-mail has been placed on the case file to support the pleadings taken in the reply. From the act and conduct of the Ops/insurance company it appears that the insurance company in this way or that way wants to avoid/linger on the genuine claim of the complainant by raising this or that quarries as made in the present complaint.  The insurance company is not supposed to earn profit/premium from the customer as it is its prime duty to indemnify the claim for the loss if causes during the subsistence of the policy.  It is a settled proposition of law that Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside, being important piece of evidence, unless there is cogent and convincing evidence.  In this regard we rely upon a judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, CPJ 2008 (2) page (NC) page 182  wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is an independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.   Further, in the present matter, the surveyor in his report  (Annexure R1-/5) has clearly mentioned net loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.28040/-. Therefore,  we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would met if we direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.28040/- to the complainant as claim on account of damage of insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy

5.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and the OP are directed to make the payment of Rs.28040/- (as per the report of surveyor) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,000/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days failing which the awarded amount would carry 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

6.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 04.12.2023

                  

          (K.S.Nirania)               (Harisha Mehta)                     (Rajbir Singh)                      Member                                 Member                               President