Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 185
Instituted on : 22.03.2022
Decided on : 26.12.2022
Nipun Kadian (age 32 years) son of Bhupender Kadian resident of H.No.1568/27, Janta Colony, Rohtak, Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., office at 9th Floor, A & B Wing, Fulcrum Building, Sahar Road, Anedheri East-Mumbai-400099 through its Manager.
….….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Dagar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a vehicle i.e. Santa FE Car bearing registration No.HR-20AF-0395, which was insured with the opposite party under policy no.P01101120177083. On 25.09.2021 Mr. Sukhbir Dagar(driver) was returning towards his residence from village Raiya, District Jhajjar Haryana. On the way an animal came in front of above said vehicle. So the driver applied sudden breaks, due to which, vehicle coming from behind hit the above said vehicle, resulting the above said vehicle hit into a tree. Complainant completed all the requisite formalities and applied for the insurable claim of Rs.1770000/- vide claim no.MV0905677 to the opposite party and the opposite party assured the complainant to pay the aforesaid amount within one month to him. But despite his repeated requests, no claim was paid by the opposite party and the same was finally repudiated by the opposite party vide their letter dated 28.02.2022. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1770000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till actual realization, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.30,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that after receiving the claim intimation, claim of the complainant was registered and an Investigator was appointed by the company. On getting the investigation report, it came to the knowledge that the complainant had not co-operated with the independent investigator helping him to reach the just conclusion as regard to the genuineness of the claim. As per the case of complainant, the vehicle in question was hit from the back side, resulting in imbalance of the vehicle, hitting the trunk of the tree and total loss to the vehicle. Interestingly, the offending vehicle was hit from the back side ran away from the spot in a second, which is practically not possible. The cause for the loss and nature of loss, as detailed in the claim form are not co relating. It is also submitted that despite repeated reminders given by the investigator, the complainant has not provided the documents. Moreover the market value of the vehicle is Rs.8 to 10 lacs, whereas the insured had intentionally declared the value of the vehicle to an amount of Rs.1770000/-. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was surveyed by independent surveyor Sh. Kishore Kumar Chhabra, who submitted his detailed report showing the vehicle in question as total loss and showed the liability of the insurance company of Rs.1583000/- on Net of Salvage basis. But the detail of loss furnished in the claim form is contradicting with the fact noted during investigation of the claim and forensic expert accident reconstruction report. As such claim has been rightly repudiated by the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 01.08.2022. Learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A to Ex.RW1/C, documents Ex.R1 to Ex. R7 and closed his evidence on dated 14.11.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R7 on the ground that the damages on vehicle and the cause of loss was not correlating with each other and the detail of loss furnished in the claim form is contradicting with the fact noted during investigation of the claim. In this regard we have observed that as per the documents placed on record, the accident had taken place when the driver of the vehicle had made emergency brakes in order to save the cattle and the vehicle of the complainant was hit from the back side by another vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle became unbalanced and hit into the tree. Meaning thereby, the vehicle is damaged from both sides. The damages are visible from the perusal of photographs placed on record by the complainant. Hence the stand taken by the opposite party is wrong and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount. As per survey report Ex.R3, IDV of the vehicle is Rs.1770000/-. After deduction of Rs.185000/- as wreck value and Rs.2000/- as compulsory deduction the claim is assessed for Rs.1583000/- on salvage basis.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.1583000/-(Rupees fifteen lac eighty three thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.03.2022 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to submit an application to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 21.12.2022 of this Commission within one month.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.12.2022
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
