Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/233/2022

Pardeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. through its Manager. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Parshant

20 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

         

                                                         Complaint Case No. 233 of 2022

                                                Date of Institution: 02.11.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:             20.11.2024.

 

Pardeep son of Shri Dalip Singh, resident of village Berla, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                                                                       

                                      Versus

1.       SBI General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered and corporate office: “Natraj” 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla-Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 through its Manager.

2.       SBI General Insurance Company Limited, having Policy Servicing Branch: 2^nd Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak, Rohtak Head Post Office, Haryana-124001 through its Manager.

                                                                             …...Opposite Parties.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Ashish, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Rajinder Verma, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER

                   The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of a Chevrolet Beat Car bearing No.DL1CAC768 and the same was insured with OPs vide policy No. 0000000019657178.  It is averred that on 29.7.2021 at about 12.30 am, the vehicle in question met with an accident due to sudden appearance of Antelope (Nilgai) on the road and the vehicle caught fire due to accident.  It is further averred that the complainant had sustained injuries in the accident and he went to the hospital with the help

 

of a bike rider.  It is further averred that lateron the police was informed and the police recorded said incident in their additional general diary detail numbered at 027 dated 29.7.2021, Police Station, Badhra.  It is further averred that the complainant had submitted the claim with the OPs and completed all formalities for insurance claim, but the claim was not settled by the OPs.  It is further averred that the OPs had declined the genuine claim of the complainant due to non submission of fire brigade report and previous commercial number and history documents.  It is further averred that the complainant has also served a legal notice dated 16.9.2022 upon the OPs, but to no effect.  It is further averred that non-payment of claim by the OPs is illegal, against the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs have filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant had insured his vehicle w.e.f. 10.11.2020 to 9.11.2021 with IDV of Rs. 4,00,000/-.  It is averred that earlier vehicle in question was registered for commercial purpose, lateron it was transferred and converted on private vehicle in the name of insured himself in December 2020 or January 2021, as disclosed by the insured.  It is further averred that the insured had further disclosed that he had purchased second hand vehicle from its previous owner Mr. Sumit in the year 2018.  It is further averred that intimation with regard to alleged fire was received by OPs on 30.7.2021 mentioning therein that the insured vehicle had been damaged in fire on 29.7.2021 at about 12.30 am.  It is further averred that there was a delay of one day in intimation and after that the OPs have deputed Shri Pardeep Kumar Gupta, one of the independent surveyor to carry out the survey and assess the loss.  It is further averred that the said surveyor after thorough investigation submitted his detailed report dated 27.2.2022, wherein assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,69,000/-.  It is further averred that the OPs had also deputed Mehar Investigations, New Delhi to carry out the investigation and to submit the details of alleged fire in vehicle.  It is further averred that the said investigator had submitted his detailed report dated 19.8.2021.  It is further averred that after receipt of the report, the OPs have sent a letter dated 15.12.2021 to the complainant to submit documents i. Fire Bridage report, ii. Previous commercial number, iii. Previous commercial number history.  It is further averred that the reminders dated 28.12.2021 and 10.2.2022 were sent to the complainant to submit required documents, but he failed to submit the same.  It is further averred that the OPs had closed the claim of the complainant due to non supply of above documents.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                The complainant and the OPs in support of their respective averments tendered documentary evidence alongwith their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of the relevant record is given in this order.   

4.                 We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

5.                The sole contention of learned counsel for the OPs is that the complainant has failed to supply certain documents i.e. (i) Fire Bridage report, (ii) Previous commercial number & (iii) Previous commercial number history despite repeated reminders and as such repudiation of claim is legal and justified.  There is no dispute regarding issuance of policy by the OPs.  It is also admitted fact that DDR No. 027 dated 29.7.2021 Ex. C3 was recorded in P.S., Badhra. A copy of the fire brigade register dated 29.7.2021 has been placed on record by the complainant as Mark-A.  In our view, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the OPs has no merit, because the complainant has placed on record copy of DDR dated 29.7.2021 & copy of Fire Brigade Register dated 29.7.2021.  From the perusal of DDR No. 27 dated 29.7.2021 (Ex. C3), it is clear that the vehicle in question was burnt in fire near Berla Power House.  Further, perusal of copy of fire brigade register dated 29.7.2021 Mark-A, also shows clearly that a car was completely burnt in the fire near Berla Power House on 29.7.2021.  So, the DDR and Fire brigade report are corroborated with each other and it is established on record that the car in question was burnt on 29.7.2021 near Berla Power House.  As regards non-providing of previous commercial number and previous commercial number history by the complainant, in our view there is no concern of the previous commercial number or its history in settling the insurance claim in question.  The OPs in their written statement have asserted that earlier the insured vehicle was registered for commercial purpose and transferred to private vehicle in December, 2020/January, 2021 and insurance was done after knowing the said facts, for the period from 10.11.2020 to 9.10.2021.  Moreover, surveyor deputed by the OPs had also assessed the loss and recommended the claim of the complainant for Rs. 3,69,000/-, as is clear from his report Ex. R2 placed on record by the OPs.  Thus, from the perusal of DDR Ex. C3 and Fire Brigade register Mark-A, it is fully established on record that the car of the complainant was burnt in an accident taken place on 29.7.2021 near Berla Power House.

6.                In our view, rejection of claims demanding irrelevant documents and on procedural grounds in a mechanical fashion shall result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigations.  What is the spirit of Insurance Policy, should be kept in mind by the officials of the insurance companies dealing with genuine claims of the sufferers and same should not be rejected on the ground of non-submission of irrelevant documents and on methodological grounds in a mechanical manner. The tendency of Insurance Company in rejecting genuine claims is the reason of increasing litigation between the insurers and insured.

7.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed:-

i)        To pay Rs.3,69,000/- (Three lacs sixteen nine thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 28.2.2022 till its final realization.

2.  

iii.      To pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as litigation charges.

          The OPs shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Non compliance of this order on the part of OPs will lead to action in terms of Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  The order be promptly uploaded on the website. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.