BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.207/A/16.
Date of instt.: 11.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 06.06.2017.
Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shyam Singh, r/o V.P.O. Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 147-148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
- Umar Pal S/o Sh. Sandal Singh, r/o Ward No.7, Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. M.K.Nirwani, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. C.L.Uppal, Advocate for the Op No.1.
Op No.2 exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR08P-9767 with the Op No.1 vide policy No.2004242311000619 valid w.e.f. 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016. It is alleged that on 25.09.2015 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy, the said vehicle met with an accident and at the time of accident, the said vehicle was being driven by Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Jasbir, r/o V.P.O. Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal. Information regarding accident was given to the Op No.1. It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the said vehicle from Mahindra Agency i.e. P.P.Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Karnal and spent Rs.3,69,814/- on the repair of said vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op No.1 did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 28.11.2016. Op No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that on receipt of intimation about the alleged loss, the answering Op deputed M/s. Perfect Investigator, who submitted his report dt. 03.11.2015 wherein mentioning that the car in question at the time of alleged accident was being driven by Mr. Akhil and not by Sunil, as alleged in the complaint; that the letters dt. 12.02.2016, 11.04.2016 and 23.05.2016 were written to the complainant by the answering Op thereby demanding DL of Mr. Akhil, the driver of car in question but the complainant failed to respond various communications. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and Mark-C1 to Mark-C3 and closed evidence on 24.01.2017. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R7 and closed evidence on 15.03.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR08P-9767 with the Op No.1 vide policy No.2004242311000619 valid w.e.f. 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016 and on 25.09.2015 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy, the said vehicle met with an accident and at the time of accident, the said vehicle was being driven by Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Jasbir, r/o V.P.O. Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal. He further argued that the complainant got repaired the said vehicle from Mahindra Agency i.e. P.P.Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Karnal and spent Rs.3,69,814/- on the repair of said vehicle. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op No.1 did not settle the claim of complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that on receipt of intimation about the alleged loss, the Op No.1 deputed M/s. Perfect Investigator, who submitted his report dt. 03.11.2015 wherein mentioning that the car in question at the time of alleged accident was being driven by Mr. Akhil and not by Sunil, as alleged in the complaint. He further argued that the letters dt. 12.02.2016, 11.04.2016 and 23.05.2016 were written to the complainant by the Op No.1 thereby demanding DL of Mr. Akhil, the driver of car in question but the complainant failed to respond various communications.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR08P-9767 which was insured with the Op No.1 vide policy No.2004242311000619 valid w.e.f. 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016. It is also not disputed that on 25.09.2015, the said vehicle met with an accident and intimation about the same was given to the Op No.1, upon which the Op No.1 deputed M/s. Perfect Investigator as surveyor-cum-investigator, who submitted their report dt. 03.11.2015, Ex.R3. The surveyor assessed the loss of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.2,79,467/- vide report, Ex.R7. The claim was not given by the Op No.1 on the ground that it was a case of driver change and misrepresentation of facts. The dispute between the parties is that according to the complainant, the vehicle was being driven by Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.Jasbir, r/o V.P.O. Kalayat at the time of accident, whereas according to the Op No.1, the vehicle was being driven by Mr. Akhil son of complainant. The surveyor Perfect Investigator has mentioned in his report, Ex.R3 that at the spot, local enquiries were made and it was revealed that the son of complainant was driving the car at the time of accident. The surveyor/investigator has not mentioned the name and particular of any person from whom he had made the local enquiries. The statement of any such person has neither been attached with the report nor have been placed on the file. The surveyor/investigator has further mentioned in his report in Clause-c under the head Referral Ground 1 and finding that on enquiries, the investigator came to know that the car had hit while saving an auto rickshaw and the auto rickshaw driver sustained injuries. It is further mentioned in the said clause that the investigator approached the said driver at his house but he was not available and they had contacted him on his mobile phone. It is further mentioned in the clause-d that the investigator made a discussion with the auto driver at his mobile phone and recorded the whole conversation in a CD. The Op No.1 has neither placed any affidavit nor statement in writing on the file of said auto driver with regard to the fact that there was only one person in the car at the time of accident and the car in question was being driven by that person, who was the son of complainant. The said auto driver was an important person being the independent person. The report of investigator shows that he had prepared the conversation of said auto rickshaw in a CD but the Op No.1 even did not place the said CD on the file. For the sake of arguments, even by placing the CD on the file, it cannot be proved that the said conversation was with the auto rickshaw driver or with some other person unless the same is proved by cogent evidence or admitted by the concerned person. The plea has been taken by the Op No.1 that the car in question was being driven by Mr. Akhil, son of complainant and not by Sunil Kumar, therefore, it was for the Op No.1 to prove the same, but the Op No.1 could not prove the same on the file by cogent evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1 has failed to prove on the file that the son of complainant was driving the car at the time of accident. So, the Op No.1 has wrongly denied the claim of complainant, hence, the Op No.1 is deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. In the present case, the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.3,69,814/- on account of repair charges, whereas the surveyor has assessed the net amount to the tune of Rs.2,79,467/-. The surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of the report of surveyor, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,79,467/- on account of loss suffered to the vehicle in question of the complainant.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op No.1 to pay Rs.2,79,467/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor on account of damage to the vehicle in question and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.06.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
