Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/558/2022

Gaurav Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

05 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/558/2022
Date of Institution	:	30.5.2022
Date of Decision	:	5/12 /2023

 

Gaurav Sharma S/o Sh. Jitendra Sharma R/o H. No.2742/B, Sector 70, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vishranthi Melaram Towers 2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai 600097, through its Managing Director.

2.       Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.136, Sector 44, Regional office, Gurgaon 122001, through its Service Manager/authorized signatory.

3.       Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office: SCO 82 (first floor), Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

4.       Joshi Hyundai (Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.) Plot NO.66, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its authorized person/Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate for OP No.2
	:	OP No.1,3 and 4 exparte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP/OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant is registered owner of Hyundai car bearing registration NO.PB10-EZ-5672 (hereinafter to be referred as subject car)  registered vide registration certificate Annexure C-1 and got the same insured with OP with comprehensive package policy Annexure C-2 valid with effect from 29.12.2019 to 28.12.2020. On the morning of 1.8.2020 at around 11:30 a.m. in the area of phase  XI Mohali  when the subject vehicle was being driven by the complainant who was going to his office, a GI  sheet from a truck in front of the subject car had fallen on the bonnet of the subject car which damaged the right side of the car and when the complainant applied sudden brake a vehicle from behind has also hit the subject car and thereby caused damage to the rear left side of the subject car. In this manner, the subject car was damaged. Information about the accident was given to OP No.3 vide intimation letter Annexure C-2/A.  The subject car was brought to Joshi Hyundai workshop  Industrial area and the said workshop made  repair estimate of Rs.35,000/-.Copy of estimate is annexd as Annexure C-3.   The surveyor was also appointed by the OP insurance company to assess the loss but to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant, the genuine claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide repudiation letter dated 12.8.2020 Annexure C-4 on vague ground that the damage to the vehicle is not relevant to the cause of accident narrated in the claim form. The copy of email sent by OPs is annexed as Annexure C-5. In response to the aforesaid email the complainant had also sent mail to the OP asking why the claim has been repudiated.  As the OPs have repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant on flimsy ground, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, concealment of facts and also on the ground that the facts as stated by the complainant do not coincide  to the damage found to the subject car.  It is further alleged that the complainant was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident  as the same has not been renewed by the complainant after 22.4.2022. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OPs No. 1,3 and 4  were properly served and when OPs No. 1,3 and 4   did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 21.11.2022.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP No.2.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant is registered owner of the subject car which was got insured by him from the OP insurance company valid w.e.f. 29.12.2019 to 28.12.2020  as is evident from Annexure C-2 and the subject car met with an accident on the relevant time and place regarding which the claim was lodged with the OP insurance company as is evident from Exhibit OP-1 and the same was repudiated by the OP as  is evident from Annexure C-6  the repudiation letter,   the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs No. 1 to 3 are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if the OP insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the damage found to the subject car after the accident does not coincide with the damage informed through claim form  and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of OP No.2.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainant is registered owner of the subject car and he was also possessing valid driving license which was valid upto 25.4.2022 as is evident from Annexure C-1.  Annexure C-2 is the subject policy further indicates that the subject car  was insured with the OP insurance company w.e.f. 29.12.2019 to 28.12.2020. Annexure C-2/A is the copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the OP insurance company intimating about the accident and the damage caused to the subject car. Annexure C-3 is the copy of the repair estimate cost to the tune of Rs.35,000/- assessed by OP No.4. Annexure C-6 is the copy of repudiation letter addressed by the OP insurance company to the complainant through mail indicating that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP insurance company  on the ground “ damage not relevant”. Exhibit OP-2 is the copy of final survey and loss assessment report.
   3. Learned counsel for the complainant  has contended in vehemence  that as it stands proved on record that the subject car having been driven by the complainant met with an accident on the relevant date, time and place  when a GI Sheet fallen on the bonnet of the subject car and when the complainant applied sudden brakes another vehicle had hit the subject car from behind  and in this manner the subject car was damaged on the front and rear side, regarding which information was also given to the OPs NO. 1 to 3 and further when it has come on record that the repair estimate was assessed by OP No.4 to the tune of Rs.35,000/- and the OPs No. 1 to 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds by holding that “damage to the vehicle are not relevant” to the cause of accident  as narrated in the claim form, the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for. On the other hand the counsel for OP No.2 has contended with vehemence that  as the damage to the vehicle caused in the alleged accident was not coincide with the facts stated in the claim form and also that the complainant was not possessing the valid driving license at the relevant date, time and place of accident, hence the OP insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  There is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the OP No.2  as the damage to vehicle  as reported by the complainant to the OPs through claim form has also been endorsed by the repairer who had inspected the subject car and issued estimate letter Annexure C-3. The surveyor has opined  in Exhibit OP-2 that the damages are not relevant and the same do not coincide with the cause of accident but the said fact has not been proved by the OP, either by examining the surveyor by tendering affidavit of  surveyor to prove that the damages found on the subject  vehicle do not coincide with the accident, especially when both surveyor have submitted in their report Exhibit OP-2 that certain parts of the subject vehicle were found damaged during their inspection and they had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28560/- to the subject car.
   4. So far as the defence of OP No.2 that the complainant was driving the subject car without having valid driving license is concerned the same is without merit. The complainant has proved on record the copy of driving license  Annexure C-1 which was valid upto 25.4.2022 whereas the accident had taken place on 1.8.2020.
   5. In view of the above foregoing it is safe to hold that the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant and  the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No. 1 to 3 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹28560/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 18.8.2020 i.e. from the date of repudiation of claim till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him/;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs No. 1 to 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. However complaint against OP No.4 stands dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove cause of action against it
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 5/12/2023 mp			Sd/-  [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member