Haryana

StateCommission

A/333/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATISH HOODA - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.MADAN

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      333 of 2015

Date of Institution:      10.04.2015

Date of Decision :       05.10.2015

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, 313, Model Town, Delhi, through its Divisional Manager.

Now through Tarsem Chand, Dy. Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Satish Hooda s/o Sh. Partap Singh, Resident of Village Sanghi, Rohtak.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Mrs. Sonia Madan, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated February 25^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, in complaint No.374 of 2013.

2.      Satish Hooda-Complainant-respondent, got his car bearing registration No.HR-12E-8899 of Hyundai Accent make, insured with the Insurance Company from December 1^st, 2009 to November 30^th, 2010, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.1,72,000/-.

3.      On October 23^rd, 2010, the complainant alongwith his friends Ajay and Ishwar, was returning from Jhajjar in the above said car. When the car reached ahead of Village Shimali on Bhabhela Road, District Rohtak at about 10.30 P.M., a Nilgai (Blue Bull) suddenly came in front of the car and in the process of saving the cow, the car struck against a free on road side and caught fire. The complainant and his friends escaped. Due to impact, the car caught fire. Fire Tenders were called, which extinguished the fire.  The car was totally damaged. The Insurance Company was also informed. The Insurance Company appointed Shri Surender Dahiya, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle, took photographs of the damaged car and prepared report (Exhibit R-7). Thereafter, the Insurance Company appointed Shri Rupin Takkar, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted report Exhibit R-8, observing as under:-

“a)     The vehicle has sustained heavy impact on its front LHS whereas the tree, to which it is reported to have met with an accident, does not indicate any such impact on it. Ref. photograph No.5,6, 10.

b)      The vehicle being a body of heavy metal has become vanished due to fire where as the tree under which the vehicle is lying, being wooden by its property & is much prone to fire, does not indicate such an impression and is lying almost intact along with its branches/leaves.

c)      After checking the engine room, it is evident that the engine oil/gear oil etc which are highly inflammable by their properties are floating in good quantity on the outer parts of engine/gear box where as the nearby parts as well as the body of vehicle with no oil link have become vanished due to quoted accident. Ref. photograph No.11,12,13,14.

However, I have arranged the necessary photos & carefully noted every visible damage sustained by the vehicle, the detail of which are as under:-

1. Assy Body Shell

1.   Body shell complete found burnt/vanished.
2. All glasses found burnt/vanished
3. All interiors/seats found burnt/vanished.

2. Tyres/suspension

1. All tyres found burnt/vanished.
2. All suspension parts found burnt/vanished.

3. Engine room

1. Engine under accidental impact/partially burnt.
2. Gear box both outer cases burnt/vanished
3. Alternator partially burnt vanished
4. Assy steering comp burnt/vanished

4. Other damages

As the bonnet lock of the vehicle was jammed at the time of spot survey, the further internal damages could not be checked precisely.

Although every care has been taken to note down & enumerate the visible damages, possibility of some other damages coming to light after dismantling the vehicle and at the time of final survey, can not be ruled out. Suitable decisions may be taken, keeping in view the cause & nature of accident.

Comments

1. After going through all, I am of the observation that the said vehicle has not met with an accident at this site but has been put here after an accident & then put into fire to make benefit of the insurance policy.
2. Keeping in view the loss and the circumstances of loss, the loss is recommended for investigation.
3. Because of the bonnet of the subject vehicle was locked at the time of spot survey, neither the chasis no nor the engine no got verified at the time of spot survey. However, I have arranged the photograph of the vehicle with its number plate as well as with insured Ref.photo”.

 

4.      The Insurance Company also got investigated the matter from Shri Devender Singh, Advocate, who conducted investigations and submitted report Exhibit R-9, observing as under:-

“Sir, After going through the record available at hand, I found that the said vehicle got accident while it was going for Jhajjar to Kheri Sadh via Shimli Bhambheewa side driven by Ajay Hooda but when our insured vehicle reached app one KM ahead from village Shimli then suddenly a blue cow came in front of our insured vehicle and trying to escape the said blue cow the driver of our insured vehicle lost the control on car and struck with a tree. As a result of this all occupants received minor injuries and the said car started fired from front side. All of occupants tried to their best to control the fire but when they could not control the fire then they gave intimation to fire brigade. After 20-25 minutes the vehicle of fire brigade came at the spot but till then the vehicle got fired totally. But as per fire brigade record the concerned department received intimation of said fire at 23.14 on 23/10/10 whereas as per insured, driver & occupant the said incident was happened at between 10-10.15 PM.

In this accident the all occupants of our insured vehicle received minor injuries that whey they did not taken any medical treatment. Neither the matter reported to the concerned police nor nobody received any kind of injuries in the said accident.

I undersigned collected the affidavit from the owner of our insured vehicle regarding the confirmation of date of accident and confirmation about the injury and police intimation of said accident. The said vehicle is in the custody of insured him self and there is no proof of non insurable interest. The said vehicle being driven by driver Ajay Hooda and there is no proof of change of driver as well as drink & drive of driver.

Our insured vehicle serviced on 16/09/2010 from Haryana Motors Workshop lastly.

Insured give intimation to The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rohtak, on 25/10/10.

I undersigned did not find any clue/record regarding using of vehicle in LPG/CNG Mode.

Hence in the present circumstances the underwriter should take its own decisions as per terms and conditions of the policy.

 My above report is issued without any pressure having no prejudice.”

5.      The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. However, vide letter dated August 9^th, 2012 (Exhibit R-1), the Insurance Company repudiated claim on the ground that the complainant had not completed the formalities.

6.      Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.      The Opposite Party-Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply while reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter.

8.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the Insurance Company-Opposite Party as under:-

“….opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.129500/- (Rupees one lac twenty nine thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.09.2013 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.”

9.      Notice of the appeal was served upon the respondent-complainant but none appeared.

10.    Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-opposite party, has argued that complainant’s claim was closed due to the reason that he did not produce the driving licence and the registration certificate of the car to the surveyor.  

11.    The contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is not tenable in view of the report of surveyor Exhibit R-7 submitted by Shri Surender Dahiya, Surveyor, column No.5 of which reads as under:

          “5.     Driver Particulars.

          Name of Driver            Aay Hooda s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan

          Motor Driving Licence No.  83241

          Date of Issue:     29/01/2004

          Valid upto:                    28/01/2024

          Issuing Authority:         Rohtak

          Type & Category of Licence: MCWG,LMV (Car, Jeep) only.”

12.    In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Surveyor of the Insurance Company was not supplied the driving licence. the surveyor was well aware of the particulars of the driving licence.

13.    So far as the non-submission of the registration certificate of the car is concerned, it has come in the report of the surveyor that while inspecting the vehicle, he had seen the number plate of the vehicle. Thus, the authenticity of these documents could have been easily verified by the Insurance Company. The evidence available on the record established that it was a genuine claim of the complainant. Report Exhibit R-9 submitted by Shri Devender Singh, Advocate (Investigator) speaks volumes in this regard. Thus, the act of the Insurance Company to repudiate complainant’s claim was not justified. The District Forum after considering evidence and documents on file rightly allowed the complaint. No case for interference is made out.

14.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose, in favour of the Insurance Company.

15.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 05.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL