BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.215 of 2015

Date of Instt. 19.05.2015

Date of Decision :26.05.2016

Dawinder Singh son of Lakhwant Singh R/o Village Pindi Post Office Fatehgarh Churrian, District Gurdaspur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 78 Ground Floor, Pusa Road, opposite to Metro Pillar No.153, Rajindera Park, New Delhi-110060, Branch Office C/o State Bank of India, First Floor, Main Branch Jalandhar City.

2.ANR Motors Pvt Ltd., (Castle Toyota), GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Harish Mahajan Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Vikas Bhardwaj Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.RK Kashyap Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant got his Etios car bearing registration No.PB-06X-8777 insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.2357717 dated 3.12.2014. Complainant submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2014 near Hamira District Kapurthala and the car was badly damaged. The complainant got the estimate of loss occurred to the insured vehicle due to aforesaid accident from ANR Motor Pvt.Ltd i.e. OP No.2 and the same was assessed Rs.6 Lacs approximately and the OP No.2 charged Rs.7000/- for the aforesaid estimate. The claim was lodged with the OP but the same was repudiated by the OP No.1 on the ground that independent surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle on 8.1.2015. The vehicle shown at the time of taking insurance and vehicle produced at the time of lodging claim are different and that the investigator after verifying the particulars of the accident came to the conclusion that the vehicle of complainant met with an accident prior to the policy commencement date. Complainant submitted that the OP got recorded the engine number and chasis number of the car at the time of insurance as well as at the time of accident. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to refund the amount of claim i.e. Rs.6 Lacs alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written replies. In its written reply, OP No.1 pleading that when the complainant approached OP No.1 for insuring his vehicle, the said vehicle bearing registration No.PB-06X-8777 was having a break in its insurance from the previous insurer. So, vehicle was called for pre-inspection. The complainant produced the vehicle and the same was inspected on behalf of OP No.1 on 3.12.2014 and its photographs (pre-inspection photographs) seven in number. The said vehicle was insured vide policy No.0000000002357717 valid from 3.12.2014 to 2.12.2015. The OP received the claim from the complainant on 8.1.2015 and was registered vide claim No.155997. The OP deputed surveyor Sanjiv Khanna to assess the loss occurred to vehicle of the complainant. Resultantly, the vehicle was examined by the surveyor and necessary photographs exhibiting the extent of damage occurred to the vehicle were taken. Surveyor also collected various other documents from the complainant and ultimately submitted his report dated 11.2.2015. The photographs of the damaged vehicle were also taken by the surveyor. On receipt of the surveyor report, the OP found that the vehicle damaged was different from the vehicle shown by the complainant in pre-inspection and it was found that there were seven difference. Thereafter, the OP deputed investigator M/s Royal Associates to investigate the matter in details and the said investigator submitted his report dated 21.3.2015, on the basis of different statement and other documents collected by the investigator and ultimately pointed out that the date, time and place of accident claimed by the insured is not genuine. In actual, the car in question met with an accident in starting of November, 2014. The car was being driven by Dawinder Singh himself. No one sustained injury in the accident. The car in question remained parked before wine shop for some days and Sh.Des Raj eye witness of the accident deposed in this regard in his statement before the investigator. Investigator came to the conclusion that insured has concealed the facts about the date of accident which is breach of policy condition. There was break in the insurance and the car met with accident during break period. As such, the claim is not admissible under police. The investigator also recorded the statements of the witness alongwith photographs and the comparative study of pre-inspection photographs of the car and final survey of photographs of the car in question and ultimately the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.3.2015.

3. In its written reply, OP No.2 pleaded that the insurance policy was issued by OP No.1. As such, OP No.2 has no role to issue alleged insurance policy. They only conducted the estimate of repairs of the car produced by the complainant. No other role of OP No.2 has played in this case.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CC alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP NO.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW2/A and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his Etios car bearing registration No.PB-06X-8777 insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.2357717 dated 3.12.2014 Ex.C3. Complainant submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2014 near Hamira District Kapurthala and the car was badly damaged. The complainant got the estimate of loss occurred to the insured vehicle due to aforesaid accident from ANR Motor Pvt.Ltd i.e. OP No.2 Ex.C4 and the same was assessed Rs.6 Lacs approximately and the OP No.2 charged Rs.7000/- for the aforesaid estimate vide receipt Ex.C5. The claim was lodged with the OP but the same was repudiated by the OP No.1 on the ground that independent surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle on 8.1.2015. The vehicle shown at the time of taking insurance and vehicle produced at the time of lodging claim are different and that the investigator after verifying the particulars of the accident came to the conclusion that the vehicle of complainant met with an accident prior to the policy commencement date. The said repudiation letter dated 25.3.2015 is Ex.C6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP recorded the engine number and chassis number of the car at the time of insurance as well as at the time of accident. So, the plea of the OP that the vehicle shown at the time of taking insurance and the vehicle produced at the time of lodging claim are different, is not tenable and is only a reason concocted by the OP for repudiating the claim of the insured vehicle. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that when the complainant approached OP No.1 for insuring his vehicle, the said vehicle bearing registration No.PB-06X-8777 was having a break in its insurance from the previous insurer. So, vehicle was called for pre-inspection. The complainant produced the vehicle and the same was inspected on behalf of OP No.1 on 3.12.2014 and its photographs (pre-inspection photographs) Ex.R2 seven in number and the pre-inspection report is Ex.R1. The said vehicle was insured vide policy No.0000000002357717 Ex.R3 valid from 3.12.2014 to 2.12.2015. The OP received the claim from the complainant on 8.1.2015 and was registered vide claim No.155997. The OP deputed surveyor Sanjiv Khanna to assess the loss occurred to vehicle of the complainant. Resultantly, the vehicle was examined by the surveyor and necessary photographs exhibiting the extent of damage occurred to the vehicle were taken. Surveyor also collected various other documents from the complainant and ultimately submitted his report dated 11.2.2015 Ex.R4. The photographs of the damaged vehicle were also taken by the surveyor which are Ex.R5. Thereafter, the OP deputed investigator M/s Royal Associates to investigate the matter in details and the said investigator submitted his report dated 21.3.2015 Ex.R6, on the basis of different statement and other documents collected by the investigator and ultimately pointed out that the date, time and place of accident claimed by the insured is not genuine. In actual, the car in question met with an accident in starting of November, 2014. The car was being driven by Dawinder Singh himself. No one sustained injury in the accident. The car in question remained parked before wine shop for some days and Sh.Des Raj eye witness of the accident deposed in this regard in his statement before the investigator. Investigator came to the conclusion that insured has concealed the facts about the date of accident which is breach of policy condition. There was break in the insurance and the car met with accident during brake period. As such, the claim is not admissible under policy. The investigator also recorded the statements of the witnesses Ex.R7 to Ex.9 alongwith photographs and the comparative study of pre-inspection photographs of the car and final survey photographs of the car in question Ex.R11 to Ex.R13 and ultimately the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.3.2015 Ex.R14. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that under these circumstances as explained above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

9. Whereas, the case of the OP No.2 is that the insurance policy was issued by OP No.1. As such, OP No.2 has no role to issue alleged insurance policy. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that they only conducted the estimate of repairs of the car produced by the complainant. No other role of OP No.2 has played in this case. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2.

10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant is owner of Etios car bearing registration No.PB-06X-8777. Complainant got insured this vehicle from OP No.1 vide policy No.2357717 dated 3.12.2014 Ex.C3. It stands fully proved on record that there was gap in the insurance because earlier the complainant had got insured this vehicle from some other insurance company and the vehicle was without insurance for some time and thereafter complainant approached OP No.1 for insurance of this vehicle. As there was gap in the insurance of the vehicle, so, the OP called vehicle for pre-inspection. The complainant produced the vehicle and the same was inspected on behalf of OP No.1 on 3.12.2014 and its photographs Ex.R7, (seven in numbers) (pre-inspection photographs) were taken and pre-inspection report is Ex.R1. Resultantly, OP issued insurance policy Ex.R3 valid from 3.12.2014 to 2.12.2015. The OP received claim from the complainant on 8.1.2015 which was registered vide claim No.155997. The OP deputed surveyor Sanjiv Khanna to assess the loss occurred to the vehicle of the complainant. Resultantly, the vehicle was examined by the surveyor and necessary photographs exhibiting the extent of damage occurred to the vehicle were taken. Surveyor also collected various other documents and submitted his report dated 11.2.2015 Ex.R4 and the photographs of the damaged vehicle Ex.R5 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,28,948/-. Thereafter, the OP deputed investigator M/s Royal Associates to investigate the matter in detail and said investigator submitted his report dated 21.3.2015 Ex.R6. The investigator recorded the statements of various persons namely Des Ram son of Thakar Dass, Davinder Singh complainant and Lakhwinder Singh son of Dalvinder Singh R/o Arjinder Nagar, GT Road, Amritsar, duly singed by the deponents alongwith their photographs and ultimately concluded that the date, time and place of accident claimed by the insurer, is not genuine. In actual, the car met with an accident in the starting of November 2014, Des Raj eye witness of the accident, owner of the wine shop where car remained parked for some days, submitted that car Etios bearing No.PB06X-8777 met with accident in starting of November 2014. The car was being driven by Davinder Singh. No one sustained injuries in accident. The car was badly damaged and it can not be said that the person who driving the car did not receive any injury. Even Lakhwinder Singh friend of the complainant in his statement stated that the accident of this car bearing registration No.PB-06X-8777 took place 2/3 months prior i.e. in the starting of November, 2014 and he visited the spot and took the complainant to Baba Bakala doctors and then to his home in his car. Not only this, this witness has stated that he got the accidental car to Dayalpur wine shop where it remained parked for 5/6 days. The complainant did not report the matter to the police nor reported the matter to the OP and he lodged claim for the first time on 8.1.2015. Even complainant did not mention in his complaint whether the accident took place in the day time or at night nor complainant immediately informed about the accident to the OP No.1 insurance company. Whereas the complainant/insured is required to inform the OP about the accidental loss to the vehicle immediately in writing as per terms and conditions of the policy. Rather, he reported the matter to the OP when he lodged the claim for the first time on 8.1.2015. As such, the OP was deprived of their right to investigate about the accident and the causes of accident. It is also proved on record that there was gap in the insurance because earlier the complainant has got insured this vehicle from other insurance company and after some gap, he got the vehicle insured with OP No.1 insurance company. The allegations of the OP is that the vehicle met with an accident during that gap period and the complainant by fraudulent means got insured the vehicle in question with OP No.1 after the accident. The OP No.1 also succeeded in proving that the vehicle produced by the complainant at the time of inspection before getting the vehicle insured, has different aspects than the vehicle for which claim has been lodged, through photographs Ex.R2 of the vehicle at the time of inspection before insurance and the photographs after accident Ex.R5 and comparative study of the photographs Ex.R11 to Ex.R13. No doubt the complainant has produced on record the affidavit of Desh Raj and complainant Davinder Singh but they did not deny their statements recorded by the investigator which are Ex.R7 and Ex.R8. Further statement of Lakhwinder Singh recorded by the investigator under the signature of the Lakhwinder Singh Ex.R9 remained unrebutted on record. All this fully proved that the complainant in-connivance with agent of the insurance company and other person got the vehicle which was already damaged in accident in November 2014 when the vehicle was not insured, insured with the OP on 3.12.2014 and there was gap in the earlier insurance and the insurance policy in question dated 3.12.2014 and in order to get this claim, created the evidence which is highly doubtful and not believable. The OP has, therefore, rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding the accidental loss under the policy in question vide letter dated 25.3.2015 Ex.C6.

11. Consequently, we hold that the present complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

26.05.2016 Member President