Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 536.

                                                          Instituted on     : 26.09.2012.

                                                          Decided on       : 29.02.2016.

Somvir son of Suresh kumar, resident of village Samar Gopalpur Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, 19 Reliance centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, through its Divisional Manager, upper storey, HDFC Bank, Model Town, Rohtak.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

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

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he got insured his vehicle/Tata Safari bearing no.HR12K-7835 from the opposite party for the period from 31.03.2009 to 30.03.2010. It is averred that the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 14.01.2010 in the area of Sampla and the vehicle was damaged totally. FIR No.19 dated 15.01.2010 was got registered . The complainant immediately intimated the opposite party about the accident and the opposite party appointed the surveyor . The complainant submitted his claim alongwith all the required papers with the opposite party and the surveyor and loss assessor Rupin Takkar issued letter dated 23.08.2010 to the complainant and compelled the complainant to get repair the said vehicle. But the said vehicle of the complainant suffered total damage in the accident, so the complainant obtained estimate for repair of the said vehicle from Raj Motors, Rohtak who issued estimated costs of repair of the said vehicle of Rs.1012202/- and complainant submitted the estimated documents to the opposite party. It is averred that the opposite party has issued a letter dated 05.10.2010 mentioning therein the false and illegal facts of              non-repairing the vehicle and that there was a delay of 13 days in intimating the company. It is averred that the alleged letter is quite illegal, unwanted unjust and against the natural justice. As such it is prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.692000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that till date the complainant has not provided the necessary documents like bills of repair and also not disclosed the garage from where the complainant has got repaired the said vehicle. Moreover the complainant has informed the answering opposite party on 27.01.2010 whereas the said accident has occurred on 14.01.2010 which is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Only the spot survey of the said vehicle was done by impartial surveyor and the final survey is still pending even after giving many reminders to the complainant. It is averred that complainant has not suffered a loss of Rs.1012202/- in the said accident instead the loss assessed by the surveyor Rupin Takkar is Rs.270857/-. The complainant has never fulfilled the requirements to settle the claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

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

4.                          Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R11 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 it is not disputed that as per policy Ex.C3 the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and that the alleged vehicle met with an accident. Copy of FIR Ex.C4 has been placed on record. After the accident complainant filed the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his letter Ex.C5 dated 23.08.2010 has submitted that he was appointed by Reliance GIC Ltd. for carrying out the final survey & assessment job of the above mentioned vehicle and has inspected the vehicle at M/s Raj Motors Rohtak has inspected the vehicle and had requested the complainant go get his vehicle repaired and to contact with the surveyor.  Complainant got the estimated cost of repair of vehicle Rs.10122092/- from Raj Motors and submitted the documents to the opposite party. But the opposite party vide its letter Ex.C6 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that: “He has not got his vehicle repaired till date and that there is delay of 13 days ion giving intimation to the company”.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that the surveyor vide his report Ex.R6 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.270856/- but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that complainant has not got his vehicle repaired and that there is delay of 13 days in giving intimation to the company. In this regard it is observed that the final survey of the vehicle has been got conducted by the surveyor vide its letter Ex.C5 and the complainant has submitted the repair estimate bills Ex.C7 to Ex.C11 but despite that the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the opposite party. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in  2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby 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 hypertechnical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount”. Regarding the delayed intimation of 13 days to the opposite party, it is observed that the police was informed immediately after the accident and the FIR was lodged on the same day.  In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”. Regarding the quantum of loss we have placed upon the law cited in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside,” and Hon’ble National Commission in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”. 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 as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R6.

8.                                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.270856/-(Rupees two lac seventy thousand eight hundred fifty six only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.26.09.2012 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order.  Complaint is disposed of  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:

29.02.2016.

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

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

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

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        ………………………..

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.