Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 212.

                                                          Instituted on     : 25.04.2016.

                                                          Decided on      : 18.07.2018.

Arvind Kumar s/o Sumer Singh resident of Bohar Tehsil and District Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Shri Ram General Insurance Company, Delhi Road, Rothak Tehsil and District Rohtak through its authorized person.

……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Rajnish Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle Hywa No.HR-38-Q-8496 and he got insured the above vehicle with respondent on dated 15.04.2014 valid upto 14.04.2015 for Rs.1750000/-. That the vehicle met with an accident on dated 28.12.2014 as the same became unbalanced and over turned and was got badly damaged. The police as well as the opposite party were duly informed about the accident. That complainant submitted all the documents and cleared the queries through letter dated 14.05.2015 as required by the OP. That the estimate of repair was Rs.18 lac given by authorized service station. That complainant filed the claim against the opposite party to pay the claim amount but the opposite party has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30.03.2016 on false and illegal grounds. That complainant also issued a legal notice to opposite party but to no effect. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.17.50 lacs alongwith compensation of Rs.100000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation, answering respondent appointed an independent surveyor and investigator  and  he served letters dated 08.01.2015, 27.01.2015, 05.02.2015 and 24.02.2015 requiring the complainant to provide the documents and clarification as the factual position was not corroborating with the complainant version but the complainant opted not to revert. That the complainant was not having insurable interest in the insured vehicle at the material time of accident. That the Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as there is no office of answering opposite party at Rohtak and policy in question has been issued from office at New Delhi. That if the Hon’ble Forums comes to the conclusion that answering opposite parties are liable to make any payment, the same shall be ordered to be paid Mahindra and Mahindra Financial services Ltd. being the financer of the vehicle and direction be issued to comply with all the formalities as required for settlement of claim. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

 2.                         Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 08.12.2017 of this Forum. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material of the case very carefully.

5.                          That besides other trifle objections which were not pressed at the time of arguments, the main question of the OPs relates to territorial jurisdiction. The OPs have raised an unsustainable plea by asserting that it has no branch office at Rohtak, wherefrom the insurance policy was issued. Firstly, there is photograph on record showing the building in which the branch office of the OP insurance co. is visible.  This photograph has not been proved to be fake or forged. Experience shows that insurance companies in order to secure business generally sent their agents/employees to places where they do not have a branch office. Such roving agents/employees are to be taken as sort of mobile branch offices. It is rather unfortunate that when such insurance company encounters its claim arising out of the contract of insurance, they seek shelter under hyper technicalities to defeat the claim and evade the liability. In the present case also the OP insurance company has set up a wholly untenable plea. As observed earlier, technicalities are not to be given any importance lest genuine claims are defeated. Furthermore there is a decided case against the opposite party company by this Forum which amply proves that opposite party company has an office at Rohtak. The crux of the matter is that the opposite party insurance company has a branch office at Rohtak. The policy was issued from Rohtak. As such the plea against territorial jurisdiction fails and is rejected. Another objection by the opposite party company is regarding no response of letters of independent surveyor and investigator which they purportedly wrote on 08.01.2015, 27.01.2015, 05.02.2015 and 24.02.2015 requiring the complainant to provide the documents and clarification and the alleged surveyor/investigator found the factual position not corroborated with the version of complainant. Further alleging that the complainant did not respond to the correspondence of the surveyor/investigator, the opposite party insurance company has also claimed that complainant was not having insurable interest at the time of accident of the vehicle. The arguments advanced by the company in this regard are unacceptable. Why a victim who wants compensation would be so careless not to respond to the correspondence of the said surveyor/investigator. The vigilance and genuineness of the complainant to receive compensation is illustrated when the complainant addressed all the queries of the opposite party company vide his letter dated 14.05.2015 in response of their letter. As such we find no force in this argument and the same is hereby negated.

6.                          In view of the above, the complaint succeeds and we hereby award Rs.1706925/-(Rupees seventeen lacs six thousand nine hundred twenty five only) as per estimate given by the authorized dealer of company placed on record as “Mark-A” alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.04.2016 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The award money shall adjust the outstanding dues of the financer M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financial services Ltd. and the remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to the complainant.  

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:

18.07.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.