Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/385/2020

Rajdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Sukhbir Maandi

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/385/2020
Date of Institution	:	18/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Rajdeep Singh son of Sh. Ranveer Singh resident of House No.445, Dera Sahib, Manimajra, U.T, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.457-458, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.
2. Toyota Sonak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Village 3ML, Suratgarh Hanumangarh By-pass Rd, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan 335002.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Krishna Kant, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Rajdeep Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that complainant is the owner of a Coralla Altis D4D G car bearing registration No.CH-01-AN-5009 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) which was got insured from OP-1 w.e.f. 14.6.2019 to 13.6.2020, by paying premium of 27,807/- vide insurance policy (Ex.C-2 & C-3). On the evening of 11.6.2020 at about 10:00 p.m. when the subject car was being driven by the complainant, it met with an accident near 22 PTP, Budh Singh Wala, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, District Sriganganagar firstly by colliding with an animal and thereafter struck against a tree which was down to the roadside.  In the accident, the front portion of the subject car was badly damaged which is also clear from the photographs (Ex.C-4). On 12.6.2020, the OP office was informed about the accident and the claim estimate by Toyota Sonak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) was also given to it.  Thereafter, OP-1 had appointed licensed surveyor, Sh.Samay Singh Yadav, who visited OP-2 for assessment of loss,  and thereafter deputed investigator of M/s Magnifying Investigators to verify the facts of the accident.  However, vide letter dated 13.7.2020 (Ex.C-6) OP-1 had repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant served a legal notice dated 20.8.2020 (Ex.C-7) upon OP-1, but, with no response.  Even one eye witness who had witnessed the accident namely Sh.Aparjot Singh Brar had also given his affidavit (Ex.C-8). The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP insurance company. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and also that the consumer complaint of the complainant is premature as the actual bills have not been submitted by the complainant.  On merits, admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car and earlier the same was owned by M/s Jacob Pratap and Associates, but, later on it was transferred in the name of the complainant and accordingly the insurance policy was also transferred in his name w.e.f. 21.3.2020 to 13.6.2020.  However, it is denied that the subject car met with an accident at the relevant place, as it has come in investigation that the subject car did not hit an animal or a tree, which fact is also clear from the photographs (Ex.C-4), as there was no tree near the alleged place of accident.  Even during investigation, it had come that the complainant had alleged different facts in the statement before the investigator than the facts alleged by him in the claim form which makes the story as set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint doubtful. It is admitted that a surveyor was deputed by the answering OP to assess the loss of the vehicle, who had assessed the same to the tune of ₹2,86,585.11 vide report (Ex.OP-1/3).  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-2 was properly served and when OP-2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.12.2020.
4. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for OP-1 and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that earlier the subject car was owned by M/s Jacob Pratap and Associates, and later on the same was sold to the complainant and accordingly the RC as well as the insurance policy were transferred in the name of the complainant and the policy was valid w.e.f. 21.3.2020 to 13.6.2020 even in the name of the complainant, as is also evident from Ex.C-2 & C-3, and also admitted case of the parties that at the relevant time i.e. at the time of accident on 11.6.2020, complainant was the registered owner of the subject car and the subject policy was also in his name, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1 is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per verification by the investigators of OP-1, cause of loss does not corroborate with the pattern of physical damage of the subject car which is violation of declaration by the complainant in the claim form and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-1 is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on finding that the claim set up by the complainant is doubtful and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-1.
   2. The contention of the complainant is that as the factum of the accident of the subject car on the relevant date, time and place stands proved from the photographs (Ex.C-4) and the statement of the complainant has also been corroborated by Sh.Aparjot Singh Brar, the only eye witness who witnessed the accident and had submitted his affidavit (Ex.C-8), the complainant has successfully proved on record that on the relevant date, time and place the subject car had met with an accident when the same struck against a tree when the complainant tried to save a stray animal on road and the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the claim as set up in the consumer complaint.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP-1 contended with vehemence that as the complainant has stated contradictory facts in the claim form and in his statement before the investigator, which makes the story set up by the complainant before OP-1 doubtful, OP-1 had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant by finding the claim of the complainant doubtful in view of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The learned counsel drew our attention to the claim form (Ex.OP-1/6) where the complainant has stated while going from Hanumangarh to Village Budhsighwala all of a sudden a stray animal came in front of the car and when he tried to save the animal by applying the brakes, the said vehicle steered to the left and came down the road and thereafter struck against a small tree as a result of which the vehicle was damaged and before the investigator he had not stated that animal was also hit. However, the contradiction pointed out by learned counsel for OP-1 is a minor contradiction, which does not make the case of the complainant doubtful as such a minor contradiction is bound to occur with the passage of time. 
   4. Moreover, the aforesaid contradiction is not of such a nature that it demolishes the case of the complainant or makes the same doubtful, especially when the photographs (Ex.C-4), having been proved by the complainant, and the photographs produced by the surveyor of OP-1 clearly indicate that the subject car had met with an accident and the same was badly damaged from its front side. 
   5. Not only this, the surveyor of the OP has also reported in his survey report about the damage caused to the subject car.  Thus, one thing is clear from the entire evidence led by both the parties that the subject car, having been driven by the complainant, had met with an accident and the same was badly damaged. Hence, the act of OP-1 in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on its part and the present consumer complaint deserves to be allowed against it.
   6. So far as the claim made by the complainant in the present consumer that he had spent an amount of ₹5,97,312/- is concerned, as the complainant has only placed on record estimate of repair (Ex.C-5) and had not produced/proved the actual bills, it is unsafe to hold that the complainant had spent an amount of ₹5,97,312/-. However, on the other hand, when the surveyor of the complainant had assessed the loss of the subject car in his final survey report (Ex.OP-1/3) to the tune of ₹2,86,585.11 (say ₹2,86,585/-) as net claim amount after deduction of ₹1,000/- on account of less excess clause, the complainant is entitled for the said amount.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay the aforesaid amount of ₹2,86,585/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 13.7.2020 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-2, therefore, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/04/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member