DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 240 of 13.6.2016
Decided on: 7.5.2018
Puneet son of Sh.Mohan Lal, resident of # 130-B, Purbian Street, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 36-37, Ist and IInd Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala (Punjab), through its Manager.
2. Raj Vehicles, Mahindra & Mahindra, Village Dhareri Jattan, Patiala-Rajpura Road, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Vikram Sharma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate, counsel
for opposite party No.1
Sh. Sanjay Khanna, Advocate, counsel for
opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Puneet, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of a car bearing No.PB-11-BE-oo24, make Mahindra Scorpio VLX 2WD, which was duly got insured with the OP No.1 vide policy No.2010552311003984, for the period from 8.9.2015 to 7.9.2016. Unfortunately, said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 28.4.2016 at about 11:00AM within the limits of Channo, Patiala Road, Sangrur when the same was driven by Mr. Anurag s/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar , r/o House No.7, Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala. The friends of said Mr.Anurag were seated as pillion riders and the complainant was seated on conductor seat. The vehicle was taken to OP no.2 for getting repaired by towing the same with crane. Intimation about the accident was given to the OPs immediately, who deputed a surveyor . The complainant submitted all the required documents to the OPs. It is stated that the accidental vehicle has not been repaired inspite of repeated visits and requests made by the complainant. The complainant also approached OP no.1 to make the payment of repair charges to OP no.2 but to no effect. He also got served the OPs with the legal notice dated 3.6.2016 for the said purpose and also for the payment of Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony, tension , physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. At this the OPs sent letter dated 24.5.2016, received by the complainant on 8.6.2016, having repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that , the complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident without the driving licence so he showed the name of his friend as driver. The said ground of the OPs is illegal and incorrect. The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency of service on their part, which also caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay the repair charges of Rs.3,92,180/- as per the estimate issued by OP no.2 dated 30.4.2016 and to deliver the vehicle duly repaired, to the complainant; to pay rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; to pay Rs.22000/-as costs of litigation and also to grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed their separate written version. In the written version filed by OP no.1, preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant had purchased one insurance policy No.2010552311003984, covering the vehicle Mahindra Scorpion bearing registration No.PB-11BE-0024 for the period from 8.9.2015 to 7.9.2016, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.It is stated that complainant intimated one claim dated 2.5.2016, towards the loss of vehicle in question on 28.4.2016 through call centre with the name of driver as Mr.Anurag. The competent authority of the OP deputed Sh.Pankaj Bajaj, surveyor and loss assessor for survey, who submitted his report dated 12.6.2016 having assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,36,476/-. The matter was also investigated bySh.A.PSingh, Claim Investigator, who recorded the statement of insured namely Mr.Punit as well as Mr.Naveen Kumar son of Sh.Nand Lal.Mr. Punit Kumar, complainant has given the written statement to the effect that, “ when we were passing near Channo and due to the high beam light of the incoming. I could not able to see the stones/bajry as the road is under constructions and car further went out of control and struck against the cemented road with high level and car got damaged mainly from the bottom’. Mr. Naveen Kumar has also given the statement that due to flashing of lights , Punit could not control the vehicle and the same after striking with small stones hit the road, which was under construction, as a result of which the car got damaged from the bottom side. From the said statements, it was clarified that the vehicle was driven by the complainant at the time of accident.Thus the claim of the complainant was not found tenable and was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation about the driver of the vehicle.There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP no.1. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In the written version, filed by Op No.2, it is stated that the complainant approached it for the repair of the vehicle which was insured with Reliance Insurance Co. who had to make the payment for the repair of the vehicle. An estimate of Rs.3,92,180/- was made . As the repair charges were not paid either by the complainant or by OP no.1, the vehicle in question was lying with the OP without repair. Moroever, the complainant never consented to repair the vehicle rather he requested for the preparation of the estimate regarding the damage caused to the vehicle and accordingly an estimate was prepared.Op No.2 is ready to repair the vehicle if the payment of the estimate of the repair is paid.There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.2.After denying all other allegation, leveled against OP no.2, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, affidavit of Mr.Anurag, Ex.CB, affidavit of Naveen Kumar Ex.CC alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Amit Chawla, Area Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence of OP No.1.
The ld. counsel for OP no.2 without tendering any document has closed the evidence of OP no.2.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly, the car in question was insured with OP no.1 for the period from 8.9.2015 to 7.9.2016 vide policy document Ex.C2. The said car met with an accident on 28.4.2016. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP No.1. However, it repudiated the claim vide letter dated 24.5.2016, Ex.C7, on the ground of misrepresentation and breach of driver’s clause of the motor insurance policy. At the out set, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has vehemently argued that on lodging of the claim by the complainant, a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,36,476, as is evident from his report Ex.OP3. Thereafter, the matter was got investigated and the investigator got recorded the statements of the complainant and one Mr. Naveen Kumar. From the statement of the complainant, it is clear that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Sh.Naveen Kumar, in his statement has also stated that due to flashing of lights , Punit could not control the vehicle and the same after striking with small stones hit the road, which was under construction, as a result of which the car got damaged from the bottom side. From the said statements, it is clear that at the time of accident, the car in question was driven by the complainant himself, whereas he has wrongly pleaded that at the time of accident the said car was driven by one Mr.Anurag . Since the complainant lodged the claim by misrepresenting the facts, therefore, the OP no.1 has rightly repudiated his claim. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that in fact at the time of accident Mr. Anurag was driving the car and the complainant was sitting on the front seat alongwith the driver and he was well aware of the actual situation happened at the time of accident. Therefore, he made the statement before the Investigator to this effect only that due to high beam light of incoming vehicle, he could not see anything but he nowhere in the said statement has stated that at the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle. He further argued that the OP no.1 got signed blank paper from Sh.Naveen Kumar and has filled the same as per its wish suitable to it. This fact has been disclosed by Sh.Naveen Kumar in his affidavit, Ex.CC. As such, the OP no.1 is not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
7. From the perusal of the statement of Sh.Puneet Kumar i.e. complainant, annexed alongwith the report of the Investigator,Ex.OP4, it is apparent that the complainant had merely stated that due to high beam light of the incoming vehicles, he could not see the stones and bajri, lying there for construction of the road and the car went out of control and struck against the elevated cemented road and got damaged. Thus on the basis of the said statement , it cannot be inferred that at the time of accident, complainant was driving the car. No doubt, in the statement of Naveen Kumar, it is recorded that Puneet Kumar was driving the car at the time of accident. However, this fact cannot be ignored that lateron during the pendency of this complaint, by way of affidavit, candid admission has been made by said Sh.Naveen Kumar that at the time of accident, in fact the vehicle in question was being driven by Anurag and Puneet Kumar was sitting on the front seat alongwith the driver. The said affidavit of Naveen Kumar has gone rebutted by the OPs. Even otherwise, it is not out of place to mention here that the OP No.1 has not placed on record the affidavit of the Investigator, who has recorded the above said statements. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that Op no.1 was not justified in repudiating the claim and is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. From the final survey report dated, 12.6.2016, Ex.OP3, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,36,476/-(142733.43-6257.43 Salvage value) . Therefore, the OP No.1 is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith interest. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. So far as the complaint filed against OP no.2 is concerned, since no specific allegations have been leveled against it nor proved, therefore, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint filed against OP no.2 and partly allowed the same against OP no.1. The OP No.1 is directed in the following manner:
- To pay Rs.1,36,476/-(142733.43-6257.43 Salvage value) alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 24.5.2016 till its realization.
- To pay Rs.7000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
The Op No.1 is further directed to comply the aforesaid directions within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:7.5.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
