BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 575 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 25.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 02.11.2023.
Satpal aged about 38 years son of Shri Lal Chand, resident of village Bupp, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited, Rider House, Plot no. 136, Sector-44, Gurugram through its M.D./ Authorized person.
2. Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited, R/o 21, Patullos Road, Chennai- 600002 through its authorized person.
3. Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate Claims department Vishranti Melaram Towers, No. 2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam, Chennai- 600097 through its Authorized person/ responsible person.
4. Girnar Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Govind Marg, Motidoongri Road, Dharam Singh Circle, Jaipur – 302004 through its M.D. / Authorized person/ responsible person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. N.K. Daroliya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3.
Sh. Mahesh Yadav, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle Hyundai I-20 bearing registration No. HR-24S/8619 and he got insured said vehicle from ops no.1 to 3 through op no.4 through online vide certificate/ policy no. VPCD003442000100 dated 27.12.2018 valid w.e.f. 28.12.2018 to 27.12.2019 and paid premium of Rs.33902/- to the ops. It is further averred that on 19.04.2019 the complainant authorized his friend Shri Rajpal to drive the vehicle as he required the same and he was holding valid driving licence. That he was coming from his relations and when at around 11.30 p.m. he reached between Kharia to Bhuna road, he met with an accident as a stray cow suddenly appeared before the vehicle of complainant and while saving the cow the vehicle struck into the tree standing adjoining to the road and snaps of the spot have already been supplied to ops. It is further averred that immediately information regarding accident was supplied to the ops and claim was lodged with the ops on 19.04.2019 itself. The ops appointed Mr. Kuldeep Kularia, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who visited the workshop namely Jai Bharat Motors, Auto Market, Sirsa where the vehicle was got parked for repair and same was duly inspected by the Surveyor. That after inspection, the Surveyor stated that loss of vehicle is beyond their limit and he required approval from the company and asked to start the repair work of vehicle. It is further averred that thereafter the ops also deputed Mr. B.P. Mehta as their Investigator who also investigated the matter thoroughly and also taken the requisite documents but since the day of accident, the complainant as well as owner of workshop are pursuing the matter in connection with claim but to no effect. However, during mail conversation the ops asked to depute another Surveyor namely Mr. Jasvir Singh for re-inspection as well as reassessment of loss of the vehicle but no such surveyor came to inspect the vehicle again. It is further averred that on 26.06.2019 a letter dated 24.06.2019 issued by the head, MOD claims of the ops was handed over by the local office of ops vide which the ops had repudiated the claim of complainant on their fictitious observation regarding damages to the vehicle and refused to indemnify the loss whereas the vehicle was under repair and final inspection was to be done by the deputed surveyor of the company. That since then complainant is taking rounds to the office of ops and requesting them to pay claim amount but they are not listening the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking amount of Rs.2,16,471/- spent by complainant on repair of vehicle from ops besides compensation for unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 to 3 filed joint written version submitting therein that this Commission has no jurisdiction as the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and answering ops do not have a branch office within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Further the policy was issued by the Gurugram branch office and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed as same has been filed with malafide intention and withholding material facts. The claim of the complainant was duly registered, scrutinized and rightly repudiated as it was observed that the damages to the vehicle were not matching with the nature of the accident. The answering ops had appointed an IRDAI approved licensed surveyor to assess the amount and extent of the damages. The Surveyor in his report has stated that the damages do not tally with the cause and nature of the accident and observed that majority of the damages seem to be intentional and not accidental. The Surveyor’s report is an important document and same cannot be brushed aside unless evidence is provided contradicting the same. It is further submitted that damages were assessed for an amount of Rs.1,45,367/-. The repudiation of claim was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 24.06.2019. It is further submitted that liability of the answering ops is restricted to the surveyor’s assessment and therefore, complainant is not entitled to any amount from answering ops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and it is also submitted that moreover it is the complainant who has failed to provide the necessary documents thereby leading to non processing of the claim and same being closed and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.4 also filed written version taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.4 is an online platform that provides the facility to user to compare insurance quotes from top rated insurance companies and purchase the insurance policy that best suits to their needs. The complainant has purchased the insurance policy from op no.1 using the platform of op no.4 who acted as an intermediary between the complainant and ops no.1 to 3. OP no.4 has nothing to do with the instance case and all the liabilities and obligation in respect of the policy and claims arising out there from are of ops no.1 to 3. With these averments dismissal of complaint qua op no.4 prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C55.
6. On the other hand, op no.4 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Priya Misra authorized representative as Ex.R1. Ops no.1 to 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Pushkin Bhatt, Executive Legal as Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R7.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Car bearing registration No. HR24S8619 was insured with the ops no.1 to 3 for the period 28.12.2018 to 27.12.2019 for the insured value of the amount of Rs.5,46,000/- as is evident from certificate of insurance and policy schedule Ex.R3 placed on file by ops no.1 to 3. There is also no dispute of the fact that said insured car of complainant met with an accident on 19.04.2019 i.e. during the period of policy in question. The complainant claims that he has spent an amount of Rs.2,16,471/- on the repair of the car in question and has placed on file bills in this regard as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and final bill Ex.C4. It is also not in dispute that after due intimation of the accident to the ops no.1 to 3 by complainant, ops no.1 to 3 appointed their Surveyors for inspection of the vehicle and for assessment of loss. The claim of complainant has been repudiated by ops no.1 to 3 on the basis of report of Surveyor Ex.R5 of Sh. Kuldeep Surveyor. Though said Surveyor Kuldeep in his said report Ex.R5 assessed the loss of the vehicle as Rs.1,45,367/- but at the same time he also reported that it has been observed that the damages of all the parts claimed in the alleged accident are unrelated to the cause of accident as reported in the claim form, the damages do not commensurate with the cause of loss as mentioned by insured in the claim form and these damages are multiple and accumulated in nature. On the basis of said report Ex.R5, the ops no.1 to 3 have repudiated the claim of complainant. However, ops no.1 to 3 have withheld the report of another Surveyor Sh. Jasvir Singh i.e. third surveyor who was also appointed by ops no. 1 to 3 themselves for re-inspection of the vehicle and assessment of loss and said surveyor in his report Ex.C16 placed on file by complainant has assessed the net less as Rs.1,74,906/- and said surveyor has not mentioned the above said facts as reported by Surveyor Kuldeep. So, it seems that ops no.1 to 3 have only placed on file the report of Surveyor which is favourable to them and have withheld the surveyor report which is against them. No doubt the report of the Surveyor is an important document and same cannot be brushed aside if there is no ambiguity in the same as mentioned by ops themselves and as such it is not understandable that why ops no.1 to 3 withheld the report of Surveyor Jasvir Singh who was also appointed by the ops themselves. Rather the report of Kuldeep Singh Surveyor seems to be partial and is only favourable to the ops no.1 to 3 because the photographs of the vehicle duly show that vehicle was damaged in an accident as it struck into a standing tree adjoining to the road. So the damages to the vehicle cannot be intentional and said plea of ops no.1 to 3 is not believable at all. Since the complainant claims to have spent an amount of Rs.2,16,471/- on repair of the vehicle and Sh. Jasvir Singh third and last Surveyor duly appointed by the ops no.1 to 3 in his report dated 16.10.2019 has assessed net loss to the tune of Rs.1,74,906/-, therefore, we are also of the considered opinion that ops no.1 to 3 are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.1,74,906/- to the complainant besides compensation for harassment. The ops no.1 to 3 have also not explained that what documents were not supplied by complainant and it is also not believable that complainant has not supplied the requisite documents to ops no.1 to 3 for settlement of his claim. However, no liability of op no.4 of any kind is made out as it only provided facility of an online platform for purchasing insurance policy.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against ops no.1 to 3 and direct them to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,74,906/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 25.09.2019 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops no.1 to 3 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.4 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 02.11.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
