DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.547/2009
Sh. Himanshu Kumar
RP-19, Second Floor,
Maurya Enclave, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110008 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A-270, Defence Colony, Ist Floor
Bisham Pitam Marg, Bhikajicama Place,
New Delhi-110024
2. Mr. Kapil Pahwa
Superior Insurance Services,
General Insurance, 28/21, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
3. Sh. Sanjeev Pahwa
Superior Insurance Services,
General Insurance, 28/21, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015 …...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 10.07.2009
Date of Order : 04.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant’s car bearing registration No.DL9CK6770 was insured by OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide policy No.1309782311003812 for a total premium of Rs.8712/- valid upto 17.09.09. The car of the complainant met with an accident and got badly damaged. The same was sent for repairs at Sikand & Company, a Maurti Authorized Dealer and Repair workshop at 68/3, Hari Nagar, Jagnath Market, near Ashram Chowk, New Delhi. Complainant applied for insurance claim with OPs by furnishing all the necessary documents. The surveyor of OPs visited the workshop number of times and duly approved various works and estimates at Sikand & Co. for carrying out repairs of the car. The workshop raised the final bill of Rs.91,368/- but the OPs did not make the payment despite giving assurances that the claim will be processed as soon as possible. The OPs have not made the payment till date and the vehicle is still lying with the workshop. It is submitted that neither OP No.1 processed the claim of the complainant nor intimated any reason for non-processing the same. The complainant is facing difficulties in his day to day activities and is being deprived from using his car and such he is incurring an extra expenses of Rs.20,000/- per month for his day to day travel expenses by using public transport and private cabs. It is stated that the complainant’s vehicle is a financed vehicle for which he is paying regular EMIs every month without using it. Complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 13.06.09 and OP No.2 has replied vide letter dated 16.06.09 in which it has denied any liability towards the complainant and has made false and frivolous allegations against him. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP No.1 to release the claim amount of Rs.91,368/- to the complainant or to the workshop so that the complainant get back his car bearing registration No.DL9CK6770 @ 24% from the date of invoice generated till the realization of the amount,
- Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment and victimization plus interest @ 24% per annum from the date of invoice till realization,
- Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- incurred by the complainant as extra expenses per month for his day to day travel by using public transport @ 24% per annum from the date of filing till the realization and future conveyance @ Rs.3500/- per month alongwith interest @ 24% from the date of payment till realization,
- Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.27,000/- for 6 months as EMIs every month which the complainant is paying upon the loan amount taken by him from the respective bank @ 24% per annum from the date of invoice till realization and future interest to be paid by the complainant as per actual payment made alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till realization,
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses @ 24% per annum from the date of order till realization.
OP No.1 in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant has not approached this Forum with cleans hands as the complainant has misled the OP No.1 by giving wrong information. The complainant had shown cover note No.8515 issued by United India Insurance Company which was allegedly issued against Maruti WagonR with all details as per the policy allegedly valid from 18.09.2007 to 17.09.2008. Believing the complainant in good faith the OP No.1 issued cover note No.108000493785 and also issued policy No.1309782311003812 valid from 18.09.08 to 17.09.09 without inspecting the vehicle physically which otherwise would been have done by the OP No.1. As per the practice of insurers the physical inspection of the vehicle is carried out only in cases of break in insurance cover but since the insured himself produced the forged documents showing the valid insurance from United India Insurance Company the OP No.1 did not insist for physical inspection of the vehicle which had already met with an accident. The said cover note issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. was sent for verification to its Regional Office, New Delhi. The Divisional Manager of the concerned office gave the details in respect of cover note No.8515 which revealed that the said cover note was issued for Bajaj Auto two wheeler in the name of Sh. Joginder Singh valid from 28.09.1999 to 27.09.2000 and the total premium collected was Rs.396/-. It is submitted that it clearly proves the malafide intention of the complainant. The policy in question was obtained fraudulently; When the claim was received as a close proximity case, the case was investigated by Mr. Charan Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 26.12.08. Since the cover note has been manipulated, interpolated and fraudulently issued against the company, hence the claim was rightly repudiated. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
OP No.2 & 3 in their written statement have inter-alia stated that the OP No.2 & 3 have been impleaded in the present case unnecessarily for no fault on their part. In the event of any accident the holder of the policy has to apply directly to the insurance company in which the insurance agent has no role to play. The complaint is vague in nature and does not convey the time, date, month and year of accident. However, as per general practice in case of any damage to the vehicle in any road accident the aggrieved person is required to inform the Insurance Company well in advance who appoints its Surveyor for assessing the damaged done in the vehicle and then the same is got prepared from any duly authorized service centre of insurance company. The complainant was well aware with all these formalities and it was for him to prove that he fulfilled all these formalities or not. It is submitted that OP No.2 & 3 helped the complainant in submitting the claim to OP No.1 who has to act strictly in terms of the policy. OP No.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed separate rejoinders to the written submitted by the OPs. In the rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1, Complainant has not denied the averments regarding producing forged and fabricated cover note No.8515 of two-wheeler in the name of one Shri Joginder Singh for the period 28.09.1999 to 27.09.2000. He has also not denied that the vehicle in question had already met with an accident. Therefore, the copies of bills etc. filed by the Complainant (not exhibited as per the exhibit nos. given to them in his affidavit) are of no help to the Complainant.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Sonkar, Manager Legal has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
No affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of No.2 & 3.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1.
We have gone carefully gone through the file.
It is not in dispute that the complainant insured the vehicle with the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 issued the cover note to the complainant on the basis of Cover Note No.8515. The OP No.1 sent a letter to the United India Insurance Company for verification of the documents and the United India Insurance Co. vide letter dated 01.12.2008 (copy Annexure R-3) informed that the cover note No.8515 had been issued for coverage of Bajaj two wheeler in the name of Sh. Joginder Singh for the period 28.09.1999 to 27.09.2000 and the total premium was Rs.396/- only. It was further informed by the United India Insurance Company that “further we would like to inform you that the cover note has not been issued in the name of Himanshu Kumar for vehicle No.DL-9C-K-6670 as shown in the photocopy enclosed and the same seems to be manipulated.”
Complainant was informed about the closing of his claim as “No Claim” vide letter dated 26.12.2008 ( copy Annexure R-2). The Complainant has not filed any document to controvert the averments made in the two documents. He could have easily produced the original cover note No.8515 or photocopy thereof to show that the same pertained to his car in question.
In view of the above, it is evident from the record and the discussion held that the complainant informed the OP No.1 regarding insurance of vehicle No.DL9CK-65670 from United India Insurance Company Ltd. which was infact not correct and the document filed by the complainant was forged/manipulated. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.05.17.
