Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 319.
Instituted on : 18.07.2018.
Decided on : 16.05.2019.
Surender Singh son of Sh. Jagpal Singh, age 44 years, resident of VPO Rohat, District Sonepat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Shri Bala Ji Enterprises, Opp: 132KV Power House, Near Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak-124001 through its Prop./Owner/ Authorized Person.
2. Royal Sundram General insurance Co. Ltd., having office opposite Services Club, Near Bhagwan Mahavir Park- Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ankit Joon, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1. already exparte.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-10W-6552 and the same was comprehensively insured from opposite party No. 2 vide private car package policy bearing No.VPC0884025000100 for the period from 26.09.2017 to 25.09.2018. That it will be pertinent to mention here that on getting the present nil depreciation policy form opposite party No. 2, they assured of promptly solution to grievances and disbursement of the claim in case of any loss. It is alleged that on 09.11.2017, the vehicle in question met with a loss at Rohtak and intimation regarding the same was made to the opposite party No. 2 on the same day by the complainant. That as per the instructions of opposite party No. 2, the complainant shifted his vehicle to the garage of opposite party no. 1 who was having business tie-up with opposite party No. 2 and the complainant submitted all the documents as demanded by the OPs from time to time. That opposite party No. 1 called the complainant to make the payments towards the repair of the vehicle, as contrary to its contention that they had got the approval from the opposite party No. 2 as regard to the repair of the vehicle in question and no amount will be charged from the complainant. That the opposite party No. 1 conveyed to the complainant that he had lost the keys of the vehicle in question and for which opposite party No. 1 demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. That the opposite party No. 1 refused to hand over the vehicle in question without making the payment of repair charges and handed over letter dated 23.03.2018 issued by opposite party No. 2, which has been issued on the false facts stating the factum that there has been mis-representation of the facts with regard to the risk insured. That complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested to re-consider the genuine claim of the complainant and to withdraw the letter dated 23.03.2018, but with no result. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite party No. 1 be directed to hand over the vehicle to the complainant and opposite party No. 2 be directed to pay of repair charges of the vehicle to the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 be directed not to charge an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the keys of vehicle lost by opposite party No. 1 and to provide duplicate keys of vehicle to complainant at his cost and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply submitted that the complainant was issued above mentioned policy, subject to terms and conditions therein. The vehicle produced at the time of policy inception by the complainant was duly inspected by the proposed opposite party on behalf of the answering opposite party before issuing the policy. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant preferred a claim with respect of accidental damage to insured vehicle which had allegedly occurred on 09.12.2017. It is further submitted that vide the claim form it was mentioned that in an attempt to prevent the car from hitting a stationed tractor trolley the vehicle got unbalanced, hit a tree and thereafter overturned to the nearby field. It is further submitted that on intimation of claim, the opposite parties duly arranged for survey of the insured vehicle at the spot vide IRDA Licensed Surveyor. Without prejudice to the admissibility of the claim, the loss was assessed at Rs. 2,60,316/-. That it was identified that the accident vehicle did not match with the vehicle which was produced for inspection at the time of proposing the risk. Another similar vehicle was produced for inspection whereupon the policy was issued in good faith relying on the report prepared by the proposed opposite party. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs against opposite party No. 2.
3. Whereas, notice was issued to opposite party No. 1 received back with the report of refusal, hence, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.08.2018 passed by this Forum.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.04.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and evidence of opposite party No. 2 was closed by court order vide order dated 07.03.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the opposite party has placed on record report of surveyor as Ex.R4 whereby an amount of Rs.260316/- has been assessed as loss. But the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the accident vehicle did not match with the vehicle which was produced for inspection at the time of proposing the risk. In this regard it is observed that the date of accident is 09.12.2017 and the date of proposal of policy was 26.09.2017. Hence after a gap of 3 months it cannot be said that the another vehicle was produced before the respondent officials at the time of insurance. Hence the plea taken by the opposite parties is false and fabricated and the repudiation of claim is illegal and unjustified. As per copy of bills placed on record as Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, complainant has spent an amount of Rs.297809/- on the repair of his vehicle and the complainant is entitled for the same.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the insurance claim of Rs.297809/-(Rupees two lac ninety seven thousand eight hundred and nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.07.2018 till its realization, Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses in favour of the opposite party no.1 within one month from the date of decision. However, after payment of repair charges to the opposite party no.1, the balance amount if any, shall be paid to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the complainant without charging any parking charges from the complainant.
8. 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:
16.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
