Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 458
Instituted on : 09.09.2019
Decided on : 22.03.2024
Jaipal son of Rishal Singh, resident of VPO Ismaila 11-B, Tehsil SamplaDistt. Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office 1st Floor, Meghna Complex, Sheela Byepass Chowk, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Badhwar & company, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager/A.R.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kaushik Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.SameerGambhir, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-95-4060 which was insured with the opposite party no.1 vide policy bearing no.991291923750020978 for the period 30.04.2019 to 20.04.2020 and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.117402/-. Complainant had purchased the alleged motorcycle from the opposite party no.2. The said vehicle met with an accident on 25.05.2019 in the area of near Toll Plaza, Sampla District Rohtak and was badly damaged. Complainant duly intimated to the respondent no.1 and parked the said vehicle with the respondent no.2 at its workshop on 02.06.2019. The surveyor was appointed by the opposite party no.1 and he duly inspected the damaged motorcycle. Surveyor filled up the printed unfilled form in his own writing without narrating the contents of the same and obtained the signatures of the complainant. The complainant suffered total damage of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.55976/- as per estimate issued by the respondent no.2 and submitted the same in the office of respondent no.1. But due to non passing of the claim amount by the respondent no.1, the said vehicle remained with respondent no.2 for a long period and complainant suffered a huge loss. Opposite party no.1 issued a letter dated 26.07.2019 and has repudiated the claim in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.55976/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its realisation and also to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- on account of non plying of vehicle, deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 30.04.2019 for which registration commenced on 21.05.2019, thus the vehicle was notregistered at the time of alleged loss/damage of vehicle. . It is further submitted that complainant had intimated to the opposite party on 01.07.2019 towards damage of vehicle whereas the complainant had submitted the date of alleged occurrence and damage on 26.06.2019 whereas upon investigation it was confirmed that loss/damage had occurred on 17.05.2019, thus entailing a delay of 40 days. Further the intimation of accident was not submitted to police, otherwise also, spot intimation has not beensubmitted to the opposite party to verify the vehicle at the spot. It is denied that complainant suffered total damage of vehicle to the tune of Rs.55976/-. As per the surveyor report, liability of the company is assessed upto the tune of Rs.12700/-. It is further submitted that mere production of estimate and bill does not entitled of the amount and assessment of surveyor cannot be discarded or brush aside. Complainant is not entitled to any amount as alleged. The claim of the complainant was repudiated and the letter dated 26.07.2019 was duly sent by registered post. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that complainant parked the said vehicle with the opposite party on 02.06.2019. Infact, the complainant brought his vehicle to the opposite party in accidental condition on 01.07.2019 and as the vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1 so the claim was intimated to the oppositeparty no.1 directly by the complainant and thereafter the surveyorwas deputed by the opposite party No.1 and he conducted the survey of the aforesaid vehicle whereas estimate of loss amounting to Rs.55976/- was prepared by the opposite party on the very same day. It is admitted that the estimated loss of Rs.55976/- was suffered by the vehicle of the complainant and the motorcycle is lying parked with the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on dated 01.12.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 17.08.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/2 and closed his evidence on 17.08.2022
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case as per the complainant his vehicle was met with an accident on dated 25.05.2019 and he parked the damaged vehicle in the workshop of respondent no.2 on dated 02.06.2019. Surveyor was appointed by the respondent no.1 and he duly inspected the damaged motorcycle but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter Ex.C7 on the ground that: “Date of loss reported during the claim intimation was 26.06.2019 whereas upon investigation it was confirmed that loss/damage had occurred on 17.05.2019, thus entailing a delay of 40 days. As the information pertaining to the loss is misrepresented, it is a violation of policy terms and conditions. In this regard we refer to policy condition no.1.
“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require”.
Further it was observed that you had purchased the vehicle on 30 April 2019 for which the registration commenced on 21 May 2019. Thus it is concluded that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident.
As per section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, “No personshall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carried a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner”.
Further the intimation of accident was not submitted to police, otherwise also, spot intimation has not been submitted to the opposite party to verify the vehicle”. Regarding the delayed intimation of 40 days, we have placed reliance upon thejudgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 titled as Dharmender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors., whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Repudiation of claim on ground of delay of 78 days in not informing insurance company of theft-Held, mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be ground to deny claim of insured”. The law cited above is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further observed by the insurance company that vehicle was purchased on dated 30.04.2019 for which registrationcommenced on 21.05.2019, so it was concluded by the insurance company that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident. In this regard we have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the insurance company as well as respondent no.2 ie.. Badhwar & Co. As per respondent no.1 the vehicle was not registered on the date of accident. We have perused the document Ex.R2 placed on record by the insurance company itself and perusal of this document itself shows that the receiptwas issued by the Govt. of Haryana State Transport Department SDM Sampla on 02.05.2019 in which the registration date is mentioned as 21.05.2019. The detail of fee under different heads is also mentioned in this document that the fee regarding the temporary registration amounting to Rs.150/- has been charged from the complainant and further an another fee regarding new registration as Rs.300/- was also charged from the complainant. Meaning thereby the vehicle was purchased on 30.04.2019/02.05.2019. As per Ex.R2 temporary registration fee and the fee regarding the new registration was also paid by the complainant to the registration authority. So the plea that the vehicle was not registered on the date of accident is not tenable. As per the respondent no.1, complainant suffered a loss of Rs.12700/- in the vehicle in question. We have minutely perused the written statement filed bythe respondent no.2. It has been specifically mentioned by the respondent no.2 in its written statement that the estimated cost is Rs.55976/-. It has been further submitted by the respondent no.2 in its written statement and affidavit that the vehicle was brought on 01.07.2019 and the estimated repair cost is Rs.55976/-. To prove this fact opposite party No.2 has placed on record documents Ex.R2/1 and Ex.R2/2. The vehicle was not repaired by the respondent no.2 because the claim was repudiated/declined by the insurance company on the grounds mentioned in Ex.C7.
7. We have perused the surveyor report Ex.R5 placed on record by the respondent no.1. This report was issued by the Perfect Investigators, Surveyor and claim investigators on 19.07.2019. In this report the accident detail, Vehicle detail, registration detail, insurance and other details have been mentioned. The surveyor has not mentioned in this report that which part of the vehicle was damaged in the accident in question whereas he admitted that the spot photographs were also taken and he also confirmed the accident occurred. He further admitted the garage detail as Badhwar and Co. Rohtak but he failed to mention the damaged parts detail in his report. Insurance company placed on record an assessment summary in his additional evidence as Ex.R7 and also placed on record insurance policy as Ex.R8. In the assessment report the date of loss is mentioned as 26.06.2019 whereas the accident occurred in the month of May 2019. This assessment summary cannot be believed. Moreover as per insurance policy itself the nil depreciation policy was issued regarding the vehicle in question. At the time of arguments, complainant made a statement that he is ready to pay the repair charges/amount, except the estimated amount claimed in complaint, if the same will be demanded by the opposite party no.2.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay the amount of Rs.55976/-(Rupees fifty five thousand nine hundred and seventy sixonly)to opposite party No.2 and the interest thereupon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.09.2019 till its realisation,Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses will be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to pay the amount of repair, if any, demanded by the opposite party no.2 except the estimated amount claimed in complaint to the opposite party no.2Further opposite party no.2 is directed to repair the vehicle in question of the complainant in all respect. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
