FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

            This is a complaint case u/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant took out an Motor Insurance coverage Policy on payment of premium of Rs,27,197/- from the OP( Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.Ltd after inspection of vehicle by the insurer on 03.08.2022 vide policy No.VPC 1665005000100 for the period from 03.08.2022 to 02.08.2023 with own damage and TP Coverage along with add-on-coverage named Depreciation waiver and engine Protection Cover.The inspection carried out by the insurer through M/S Axion Technical Services Pvt.Ltd and based on such inspection report the complainant was allowed to purchase the Policy.The vehicle met with an accident on 12.08.2022 at 11 pm at Sitamari,Bihar.The accident causes leakage of engine oil from oil sump and external damage nature following which the engine of the car stopped functioning. The complainant raised the

claim of the loss being No.PV00937773.Vehicle Registration No.WB26T4549 Hyundai Verna an amount of Rs,1,02,000/ which includes cost of breakdown service with the OP. 

The OP Insurance company has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 20.10.2022 stated that the damages of the insured vehicle already existed before inception of the policy.Since the damages are already visible in the VIR,the date of loss as declared by the complainant was not correct.The complainant further stated that the car is still parked unrepaired in the authorized Hondai Service Centre in Muzzafarpur,Bihar.The parked vehicle at the service centre will also charged with parking fees.The complainant prays for compensate for the losses and the hurdles he faced to the OP.

The OP Insurance company failed to provide services for which they received hefty premium and the insurer harassed due to claim repudiation based on unjustified reason.

       OP has not entered appearance .No WV has been filed by the OP.It also appears that the stipulated period for filling WV by the OP has already been elapsed and as such the case do proceed ex-parte against the OP.

Points for Determination

In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.

1)  Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
            2)  Whether the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?

           3)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-

The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainant has filed his Evidence supported by affidavit.The case has been proceeded ex-parte against OP .The OP has not filed the E-Chief and not submitted their BNAs also. The complainant has filed his BNA.

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased Motor Policy from the OP Insurance company by payment of premium of Rs,27,197/-.The policy period from 03/08/2022 to midnight of 02/08/2023 bearing the policy no.VPC1665005000100.The car met with an accident on 12.08.2022 within the insurance cover period.The OP  insurance company conducted an inspection on 17^.08.2022 at M/s Balaji Hyundai Auto Pvt.Ltd.Muzaffarpur and it observed that damages already existed on the insured vehicle before the inception of the policy and the date of loss as declared by the complainant was not correct. And on that observation the policy claim of the vehicle repudiated by the OP.Here,the question arises of the way the OP conducted the inspection of the damaged vehicle.The OP made self observation and assessment of the damaged vehicle which is against the natural justice and raises several questions on the

authenticity of the inspection report and denial of the policy claim PV00937773. It is also an admitted fact that the insured vehicle was inspected by M/S Axion Technical Services Pvt.Ltd and on the basis of the inspection report the complainant was allowed to purchase the Insurance Policy upon payment of premium of Rs,27,197/.It was established that the vehicle was in good condition before met with an accident and moreover,the vehicle traversed nearly 1000 KMs and crossed many tool booths.  Thus,from the negligent attitude of the OP,the complainant is still suffering from monetary loss and mental harassment.

It is true that no WV has been filed by the OPs though several opportunities were given to them for filing WV but they have failed the same as such the allegation stated in the complaint petition remains unchallenged. Regarding this matter ,we can safely state that on failure to file WV by the OPs tantamount to admission of the allegations stated in the complaint petition.

In view of the above facts it is observed by us that,it is unfortunate that OPs have badly failed to perform their duties and responsibilities. It is not our expectation that the complainant by any means suffer from loss of money and time for the utter negligence on the part of OP.Under the above circumstances, unfair trade practice and the gross negligence and deficiency on the part of the OPs is proved and the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs.

The instant consumer complaint is thus allowed on Ex-parte against the OP.

Based on the above discussion we disposed of the consumer case in the following terms:-

Hence,

                     Ordered 

1.OP (Insurance Company) is  directed to Pay Rs,50,000/- as compensation for Harassment and mental agony.

2.OP is further directed to pay Rs,5,000/ as litigation cost.

The above mentioned orders are to be complied by the OP within a period of 02 months in default the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution as per rules.

      Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and

Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties