BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 62 of 2012
Date of Institution : 21.3.2012
Date of Decision : 15.9.2016.
Jagtar Singh son of Shri Gurdev Singh, resident of village Sant Nagar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, SCO No.135-136, Top Floor, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
..…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.H.S.Raghav, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is registered owner of Innova Car bearing registration No.PB-11AJ-0098 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy/ cover note No.2004702311009470 which was issued at Sirsa. On 28.12.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., the aforesaid car met with an accident near Panipat with an unknown truck. At that time it was being driven by Gurpreet Singh son of complainant. After the accident the car was firstly shifted to Sant Nagar/Jiwan Nagar and then to Bathinda. The vehicle was got inspected by opposite party before issuance of policy. The complainant informed Raj Pal representative of the opposite party about the accident who asked the complainant to shift the vehicle to Bathinda in Radian Toyota company and same was shifted there by hiring a crane by the complainant. The car was repaired there for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- approximately and the said amount was paid by the complainant and the bills were duly submitted to the opposite party for payment. Thereafter, the op started harassing the complainant by writing false and fictitious letters. The op even started writing as last reminder as is clear from letter dated 20.3.2011 which was received on 27.3.2011. However, prior to that no such letter was received. The op started putting off the complainant by seeking false clarifications as mentioned in the letter dated 12.7.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that in first week of December, the car of the complainant had met with an accident near Gobindpura, Distt. Sirsa whereas no such accident had taken place. The car in question was previously insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., w.e.f. 20.2.2010 to 19.2.2011. After the transfer of the vehicle in favour of complainant, he opted to get a new policy from op w.e.f. 12.12.2010 to 11.12.2011. There was no occasion not to lodge the claim with National Insurance Co. Ltd. had there been any accident in first week of December, 2010 as pointed out in the said letter. But again the op started getting clarifications as to why during the policy period pending with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. the complainant had taken another policy. As only two months remained for renewal of the said policy issued by above said company, so instead of getting the policy transferred in favour of the complainant, he opted to get a fresh policy as induced by op through its agents. There is no illegally in the same and claim could not have been repudiated on this ground. The complainant has been approaching the op time and again but except the harassment, he could not get anything. The complainant also got served a registered notice upon op but to no effect. Even no intimation as to whether claim has been accepted or rejected has been given. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply. It has been submitted that upon receipt of claim intimation about the alleged accident of the vehicle, an IRDA approved independent and duly licensed Surveyor & Loss Assessor Sh. R.P. Singhal was deputed by the answering op for physical inspection of the damages, survey and assessment of loss who submitted his report assessing the loss with remarks that there is no spot survey and photographs nor the insured could tell the vehicle number which hit his alleged insured vehicle at backside whereas the impact was so severe that the colliding vehicle must have also been damaged badly from its front and could not escape from the spot and also observed that the complainant have been concealing the true facts and asked for thorough investigation of this case. Accordingly this case has been got investiged through an independent Investigating Agency M/s Royal Associates of Kurukshetra and as per finding of the Investigation, the place, date and time of accident mentioned by the insured near Panipat is incorrect rather the said vehicle had met with an accident at Gobindpura near Rania in the first week of December, 2010 with a trailer. Insurance of the vehicle was managed by concealing the actual facts and producing another vehicle because package insurance of this vehicle was existing of National Insurance Co. Ltd. but it was not got transferred within the prescribed time limit of 14 days after transfer of registration certificate and the complainant was aware of all these facts and did not lodge the claim with National Insurance Co. Ltd. Besides this the Meter reading at the time of pre-inspection for new insurance is mentioned as 58859 Kms whereas at the time of alleged accident which occurred after 16-17 days after its insurance, the Final Surveyor noted meter reading as 1,15,276 Kms which fact clearly proves that the accidental vehicle was not the same as was produced at the time of its insurance because no vehicle can run more than 50,000 kms as a private use vehicle in such a short duration of time. Likewise, identification of vehicle depicted in photographs taken at the time of pre-inspection and taken at the time of Final survey differ as pointed out by the Investigator. Hence, the complainant has concealed the true and material facts and obtained insurance fraudulently by producing a different vehicle which is clear breach and violation of utmost good faith clause and misrepresentation on the part of complainant and has made himself dis-entitled to any relief. However, on receipt of survey report and investigation report, the complainant was informed vide letters dated 22.3.2011, 26.6.2011, 12.7.2011 and finally by registered notice dated 22.7.2011 conveying therein finding of the investigator for clarification with documentary evidences but the complainant did not give any documentary evidence thereof. Hence, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit as Ex.C1, affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Ex.C2 and documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C10, whereas, the opposite party has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R31.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It has been established on record that vehicle in question of the complainant i.e. Innova Car bearing registration No. PB-11AJ-0098 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 12.12.2010 to 11.12.2011. According to the complainant, the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2010 i.e. during the period of policy. The opposite parties in order to escape from their liability to pay the claim amount have taken hyper technical pleas and have not settled the claim of the complainant. The plea of the opposite parties that as per finding of the Investigator, the place, date and time of accident mentioned by the insured near Panipat (Haryana) is incorrect rather the said vehicle had met with an accident at Gobindpura near Rania in the first week of December, 2010 with a trailer is not substantiated by any reliable and cogent evidence. There is nothing on file to show that to whom the Surveyor approached at Panipat for verifying the accident. The Surveyor in his investigation report Ex.R10 has claimed that they visited actual site of accident near Sant Nagar, Sirsa near poultry farm and nearby people confirmed about accident of Innova with truck in November, 2010 but surprisingly there is nothing on record to show that to whom the Surveyor approached at Sant Nagar and even the names and addresses of the persons who confirmed about the accident there have not been mentioned in the report. The investigation report Ex.R10 is given by Royal Associates, Kurukshetra but the names of Surveyor etc. who visited Panipat and Sant Nagar have also not been given. Moreover, the opposite parties themselves are also not confirmed about the place of accident as in some of their documents like letter Ex.R4 they have stated that it was revealed during investigation that said vehicle met with accident at Gobindpura near Rania whereas in the investigation report and in some of the documents it is mentioned that accident took place near village Sant Nagar and there is nothing on record to prove that which version of the opposite parties is correct and is to be believed. Moreover, it is also mentioned in the Investigation report, that one of the neighbourer of insured confirmed in his statement that car met with accident near village Sant Nagar, Sirsa but no such statement has been placed on file. Even the name and address of that neighbour has not been disclosed by the opposite parties. The other pleas of the opposite parties that insurance of the vehicle in question was managed by producing another vehicle and plea regarding covering of Kms. are also so hyper technical and cannot be given due weightage and said pleas are not available to the opposite parties because engine number and chassis numbers of the vehicles are mentioned in the insurance cover note by the representative of the insurance company after duly seeing the same from the vehicle. So, none of the grounds taken by the insurance company is justified and have to be ignored. The complainant has also justified the ground for insuring his vehicle i.e. Innova Car with the opposite party by stating that after purchase of vehicle by him as only two months remained for renewal of the policy issued by the National Insurance Company Ltd., so instead of getting the policy transferred, he opted to get a fresh policy on the asking of agent of the opposite parties and there seems no ill intention on the part of the complainant in this regard.
6. Now we see to what amount of claim the complainant is entitled for? The complainant has claimed that he has spent an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- upon the repair of his vehicle and in this regard he has placed on file copy of bill of Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. Radiant Toyota Bathinda as Ex.C6 for total amount of Rs.2,26,077/- which includes Rs.1,59,962/- being the costs of spare parts, Rs.40000/- as labour charges and Rs.26,114.85/- as tax amount. However, the said amount of Rs.2,26,077/- seems to be on higher side. Moreover, the complainant has also not placed on file receipt of actual amount paid to the said agency. Whereas Sh. R.P. Singhal, Surveyor appointed by the opposite parties in the Claim Cost Approval Sheet Ex.R31 assessed the liability of the company to the tune of Rs.1,47,522/- and in our view the insurance company cannot escape from the liability assessed by its own Surveyor.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make payment of Rs.1,47,522/- (to make it in round figure i.e. Rs.1,47,500/-) to the complainant within a period of one month, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 21.3.2012 till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 15.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
