Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/231/2018

Raj kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

H.S Toor

07 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD

          C.C.No.231 of 2018.               Date of Instt.:21.08.2018 Date of Order: 07.04.2023

Raj Kumar son of Shri Mange Ram resident of Ward No.12, Krishna Colony, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

          Versus

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP-RIICO Industry Area, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) – 302022 through its Branch Manager.

2. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

          ..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before:        Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.                                                               Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.                                                             Sh.K.S.Nirania, Member

Present:       Sh.H.S. Toor, counsel for the complainant.                                        Sh.U.K.Gera, counsel for the opposite parties No.1.                    OP No.2 has been given up Vide order dated 14.05.2019.

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT;

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant has submitted that he is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR56-8134 which was insured with OPs vide policy No.10003/31/17/338996 having validity for the period 10.10.2016 to 09.10.2017; that on 26.05.2017 when the complainant was going to Hisar from Tohana, the vehicle in question met with an accident and the complainant sustained injuries on his person; that the complainant intimated about the accident to the insurance company; that the surveyor approached the complainant to inspect the vehicle when he was getting treatment at home;  that the surveyor intimated qua totally damaging of the vehicle and further prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.1,28,000/- for repairing the vehicle in question; that after passing many months on 06.11.2017 one Lakshay resident of Gurgaon again visited the complainant and after clicking the photographs of the vehicle in question assured the complainant that his claim would settle soon but till today needful has not been done; that the complainant kept on requesing the Ops to settle the claim but when it did not yield much he got legal notice served upon them but it also fell on deaf ears; that thereafter the Ops refused to settle the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CW1/A to Annexure CW1/S.

2.                          OP No.1 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as cause of action and suppression of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive because as per the complainant the accident was occurred on 26.05.2017 but the intimation to the answering Op was given on 09.10.2017 after a delay of  about 4-1/2 months;  that after receiving the intimation surveyor was appointed who in his report has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.49703/-; that the accident alleged to have been taken with a tractor but no FIR has ever been registered; that the complainant has even not submitted his medical reports to the answering Op;  that due to delayed intimation no opportunity was left with the Ops to inspect the vehicle in question;  that the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the answering Op is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. In the end, prayer for dismissing the complaint has been made.  OP No.1, in evidence has tendered affidavit of Bhanwar Govind Singh as Annexure R1 with documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R5.

3.                          Learned counsel for the complainant gave up the Op No.2 being unnecessary vide separate statement dated 14.05.2019.

4.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for appearing OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

5.                          Undisputedly, the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR56-8134 (Annexure CW1/B) and the same was insured with Ops (Annexure CW1/C). The complainant has come with the plea that his vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy; therefore, it is the boundened duty of the Ops to pay the loss suffered by him on account of damage of the vehicle but the Ops did not do so.  

6.                          Learned counsel for the appearing Op has stressed hard that there is delayed intimation of 4-1/2 months, therefore, the answering Op cannot be held liable for any liability on account of damage of the vehicle as the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question.  

7.                          The complainant in his compliant has specifically mentioned that he was taking treatment when the surveyor visited him and the fact about his ill health has also been mentioned in the claim intimation slip/surveyor report Annexure R5, therefore, delayed intimation, if any, does not appear intentionally rather due to the circumstances arising out at that time, therefore, the plea of delayed intimation does not sustain anymore. On this point reliance can be taken from the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another 2020(1) RCR (Civil) page 981 in which it was held that delay in intimating insurance company is no ground to deny the claim and claim was given to the aggrieved party.

8.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that the total estimate for repairing of the damaged vehicle in question was Rs.1,28,000/- but this plea is not supported either with any authentic document or any expert report, therefore, this Commission has left with no other option but to believe the Surveyor report (Annexure R5) because this is settled proposition of law that Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside, being important piece of evidence, unless there is cogent and convincing evidence.  In this regard we rely upon a judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, CPJ 2008 (2) page (NC) page 182  wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is an independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.   Further, in the present matter, the surveyor in his report has clearly mentioned net loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.49,703/-. Therefore,  we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would met if we direct the appearing Op to make the payment of Rs.49,703/- to the complainant on account of loss suffered by him due to damaging of vehicle in an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

 9.                         Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and the appearing OP is directed to make the payment of Rs. 49703/- (as per the report of surveyor) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further direct the appearing OP to pay Rs.11,000/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.

10.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 07.04.2023

                  

          (K.S.Nirania)               (Harisha Mehta)                     (Rajbir Singh)                      Member                                 Member                               President