Haryana

Rohtak

91/2012

Ashish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manjeet Singh

22 Dec 2014

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 91.

                                                          Instituted on     : 06.02.2012.

                                                          Decided on       : 09.03.2015.

 

Ashish s/o Sh. Mahinder Singh R/o H.No.1243/21, Prem Nagar, Rohtak, District Rohtak at present R/o H.No.41, Rohtak District Rohtak(Haryana)-124107.

 

                                                          ………..Complainant.

 

                             Vs.

 

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Rohtak, 2^nd Floor, SCO 400-401-402, HDFC Bank Building, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak(Haryana).

 

                                                          ……….Opposite party.  

 

 

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Sh.Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advovate for opposite party.

                  

                                      ORDER

 

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

 

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is owner of vehicle No.HR-46J-0691 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.2013782334006122.  It is averred that on 13.10.2009 the said vehicle had met with an accident and complainant has lodged a claim with the opposite party. It is averred that the surveyor was appointed by the opposite party who inspected the vehicle at the spot of accident and the said claim was assigned the number 2091244721 by the opposite party. It is averred that the complainant had submitted a consent letter wherein he agreed to accept Rs.190000/- as full and final settlement of the said claim. It is averred that on 16.7.2010 the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant asking him to supply the copy of FIR of the said accident for processing the said claim but the complainant was not aware of any FIR regarding the said accident as it was only after the OP’s notice, the complainant made enquiries about the FIR of the said accident and came to know that the FIR was lodged at P.S.Bhimasar District Kutchh(Gujarat) and he could only manage the copy of FIR on 16.08.2010 and on 17.08.2010 he got the same translated into Hindi.  It is averred that on 24.08.2010 the complainant submitted the same to the opposite party but the opposite party refused to accept the same saying that the claim had already been closed. It is averred that complainant served a legal notice through his counsel to the opposite party but to no effect. It is averred that the opposite party again vide its letter dated 10.02.2011 asked the complainant to supply the copy of FIR. The complainant again sent the copy of FIR on 15.03.2011 but no action was taken by the opposite party. It is averred that despite his repeated requests and submitting all the required documents, opposite party has neither settled nor repudiated the claim in question for such a long time which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  As such it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.190000/- alongwith interest,  compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                          On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant lodged the claim on 13.10.2009 and on getting information from the complainant, respondent appointed an independent surveyor to assess the loss who submitted his report showing the liability of the insurance company to the amount of Rs.280283.19/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is averred that the complainant also submitted his consent letter showing his willingness to get the vehicle repaired himself at his responsibilities subject to Rs.190000/- which shall be full and final payment.  It is averred that in pursuance to settle the claim, the opposite party served letters dated 13.5.2010, 18.06.2010, 16.7.2010 and 10.02.2011 requesting the complainant to submit the copy of the FIR for final disposal of the claim on merits.  But the complainant opted not to make any revert. Hence the answering opposite party having no option but to close the file of the complainant. It is averred that the story made by the complainant is false and fabricated. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P11 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed.  As per policy document Ex.P2, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the IDV of vehicle is Rs.795000/-. It is also not disputed that the vehicle had met with an accident and the opposite party appointed its surveyor who as per his report Ex.R8 had assessed the total loss amounting to Rs.190000/- and the complainant vide his consent letter Ex.R3 had accepted the same as full and final settlement but the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that despite its repeated requests vide letter Ex.R4 to Ex.R7 the complainant had not submitted the copy of FIR. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the FIR of the alleged accident was lodged at P.S.Bhimasar, District Kutchh(Gujarat) and the complainant could only arranged the Hindi version of FIR Ex.P5 on 17.08.2010. As per the complaint, affidavit and legal notice Ex.P7 filed by the complainant, he personally met with the opposite party and requested the opposite party to accept the copy of FIR but the same was not accepted. Complainant vide his letter Ex.P10 had sent the copy of FIR to the opposite party and had placed on record copy of courier receipt Ex.P11 but the claim has not been settled till date.  

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that plea for non-settlement of claim by the opposite party is that complainant has not submitted the copy of FIR despite repeated reminders. In this regard it is observed that no doubt, the opposite party vide its letters Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 had requested the complainant to submit the copy of FIR but the service of letter Ex.P10 through courier receipt Ex.P11 is not denied by the opposite party and as per this letter the copy of FIR was forwarded to the opposite party. Hence it is proved on file that the copy of FIR was forwarded to the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 1(2007) CPJ 458 titled as Bhagwanti Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. whereby Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission, Shimla has held that: “Mere letter of reminder asking from party, to provide certain documents and on failure to do needful, insurer to treat claim as ‘no cliam’ does not amount to repudiation” and as per 2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hyper technical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per his consent letter Ex.R3 to the tune of Rs.190000/-.

 8.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.190000/-(Rupees one lac ninety thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.02.2012 till its realisation  and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

 9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

09.03.2015.         

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.