Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/866/2022

HABIB ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTORIZED REPRESENTATIVE - Opp.Party(s)

KUSHAGRA BENIWAL

03 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/866/2022
Date of Institution	:	10/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/10/2023

 

Habib Ali, son of Sh. Sher Mohammad, resident of Ward No.2, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh 174101.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, SCO 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Authorised representative.
2. Dee Kay Automobiles, Mahindra First Choice, Near Kara Hotel, Ropar Road, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh-174101 through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Habib Ali, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that complainant is the registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Celerio car bearing registration No.HP-12H-9771 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) which was insured with OP-1 vide policy (Annexure C-2).  On the evening of 27.6.2022, at around 10:00 p.m. when the complainant was driving the subject car, it met with an accident as a stray animal suddenly jumped on the road and when he tried to save the same, subject car struck against a JCB machine coming from the opposite side and got damaged.  The complainant brought the subject car to the workshop of OP-2 from where intimation about the accident alongwith the claim form (Annexure C-3) was submitted by the complainant with OP-1.  Earlier the policy was in the name of Mrs. Sitara Begum, wife of the complainant and on her demise, the same was transferred in the name of complainant. OP-2 vide estimate (Annexure C-4) had calculated the cost of the repair to the tune of ₹84,092/-.  On 4.7.2022 an email (Annexure C-5) was sent by OP-1 asking the complainant to go ahead with the repair work with OP-2. Thereafter, the subject car was repaired by OP-2, but, after completion of repair job, OP-1 refused to pay the amount spent for repair of subject car.  The subject car is still in possession of OP-2 on account of non-clearance of the bill. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was insured with the answering OP w.e.f. 8.2.2022 to 7.2.2023 vide subject policy (Annexure R-1).  It is further alleged that on 1.7.2.22 the answering OP had received intimation from the complainant about the accident of the subject car on 27.6.2022.  Accordingly, answering OP had deputed Jatinder Dhiman, Investigator to investigate the matter who submitted his report (Annexure R-2) by concluding that the damage to the subject car does not coincide with the spot investigation.  The answering OP had also deputed their Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Gurcharan Singh who vide his report (Annexure R-3) assessed the loss to the tune of ₹39,238/-.  It is further alleged that on finding that the damage to the subject car claimed in the present accident does not coincide with the nature of loss and also that the complainant had misrepresented facts in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was repudiated by the answering OP vide repudiation letter dated 28.7.2022 (Annexure R-4). On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.3.2023.
4. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, which was duly insured on the relevant date i.e. on the day of accident, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1 is unjustified in repudiating the claim of complainant by wrongly holding that the facts intimated by the complainant to OP-1 do not coincide with the accident as found by the investigator and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant has filed a false complaint by misrepresenting facts before OP-1 and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by OP-1 and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-1.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the claim form (Annexure C-3), terms and conditions of the subject policy (Annexure C-2), investigation report (Annexure R-2) and the contents of the repudiation letter (Annexure R-4) and for that purpose the aforesaid documents are required to be scanned carefully. 
   3. Perusal of the claim form (Annexure C-3) clearly indicates that the complainant had explained the manners in which a stray animal appeared on the road all of a sudden as a result of which when the complainant tried to save the said animal, the subject car struck against the JCB coming from the opposite side and the car was damaged. On the other hand, the investigation report (Annexure R-2) by Jatinder Dhiman  indicates that the same is self-contradictory as on one hand the investigator had stated that the facts as narrated by the complainant to OP-1 do not coincide with the nature of loss found to the subject car and also that the complainant had not clicked the photographs and had not disclosed the registration number of the JCB with which the subject car struck, but, at the same time has also stated that on spot enquiry, the narration was found genuine and the nearby people had also verbally confirmed about this accident.  Moreover, even the investigator had not clicked any photograph of the spot or of the subject car in order to prove that the facts as narrated by the complainant in the intimation form do not coincide with the nature of the damage found to the subject car and in this manner much weightage can also not be given to the aforesaid investigation report.
   4. In the repudiation letter (Annexure R-4), OP-1 has given the reason for repudiation of the claim of the complainant that he had not given intimation in writing immediately after the accident which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy by the complainant.  However, when the complainant himself has stated that immediately after taking the subject car to the workshop of OP-2, he had given intimation to OP-1 and further it has come on record that the complainant was allowed to go ahead with the repair work by sending email dated 4.7.2022 (Annexure C-5), it is clear that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP-1 on flimsy grounds.
   5. In view of the foregoing it is safe to hold OP-1 was unjustified in repudiating the claim of complainant and the said act amounts to deficiency in service on its part and, therefore, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   6. So far as the claim of the complainant that he spent an amount of ₹84,092/- for the repair of the subject car regarding which estimate (Annexure C-4) has also been submitted is concerned, as Annexure C-4 is only an estimate of repair work, complainant has failed to prove on record that in fact he had spent the said amount, especially when the actual bill of the said repair work has not been produced/proved on record by the complainant.  On the other hand, as the Surveyor & Loss Assessor deputed by OP-1 has assessed the actual insurance liability of OP-1 to the extent of ₹39,238/-, complainant is entitled to the said amount only alongwith interest and compensation etc. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹39,200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 28.7.2022 onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-2, the consumer complaint against
   OP-2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 03/10/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member