MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

03.07.2024

1.         A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant is the owner of bike make Mahindra & Mahindra MOJO-300 duly insured with the OP vide policy bearing no. 101047/31/60/009752 w.e.f. 21.10.2015 to 20.12.2016 for a sum insured of Rs. 1,50,100/-

2.         On 15.09.2016, the complainant was driving the bike toward his home from Gurugram, he lost his balance due to a pit hole on the road as a result of which the vehicle skit and collided with divider. Due to the aforesaid accident the vehicle got badly damaged, fortunately, the complainant did not sustain any injury as he was well equipped with helmet, jacket etc. It is alleged by the complainant that he was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a towing charges to tow his vehicle. The intimation of the accident was duly given to OP Ins. Co. and the claim was registered with OP vide claim no. 10000/31/17/C/037204. The OP Ins. Co. appointed the investigator and as per his demand the complainant submitted the requisite documents to him as and when demanded. It is alleged by the complainant that despite completing the entire formalities and submitting the requisite documents, the vehicle is lying with the service centre as OP failed to settle the claim in question. It is alleged by the complainant that the non settlement of the claim by OP clearly establish the case of deficiency in service against OP, hence, this complaint.

3.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its written statement wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the complainant lodged the present claim with OP with false information as despite letter dated 09.11.2016, 07.12.2016, 16.01.2017 and 25.01.2017 the complainant failed to provide the requisite documents as well as failed to explain the cause of accident. Even the complainant did not reply to any letter hence, there is misrepresentation on the part of complainant. The complainant has breached the policy terms and conditions by not informing timely the OP Ins. Co. in respect to the accident in question. It is further stated that due to misrepresentation of the facts by the complainant and non reply of the various letters issued to him. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. It is further prayed that no cause of action arose in favor of the complainant and against the OP as such the present complaint be dismissed with cost.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP filed wherein the contents of written statement was simply denied. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

5.         Complainant has placed on record the copy of insurance policy, copy of registration certificate, photograph of damages vehicle, towing receipt dated 16.09.2016, copy of DL and copy of letter  issued to OP Ins. Co.  in support of his contention.

6.         Despite opportunity OP failed to file its evidence.

7.         Written arguments filed by the parties.

8.         We have heard  the arguments advance at the bar by complainant. Despite ample opportunity OP counsel failed to address the arguments and have perused the record.

9.         The sole question for our consideration in the present complaint case is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP Ins. Co. is justified or not.

10.       It is argued by the complainant that on 15.09.2016 the vehicle in question got damaged as the vehicle got skit and collided with divider. It is further argued that the intimation of accident was duly given to the OP Ins. Co. but despite supplying the requisite documents OP failed to honor the claim and repudiated the same on the ground of non furnishing of the FIR, medical record in respect to the incident in question despite the fact that the driver of the vehicle does not sustain any injury as such no FIR was lodged and no medical record  was available. It is further argued that the present complaint be allowed in the interest of justice.

11.       We have carefully gone through the record. The complainant has prayed that direction be given to OP to pay the IDV of the vehicle along with interest @ 24% p.a besides other relief. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the two photographs of the alleged damaged vehicle. The bare perusal of the aforesaid photographs makes it clear that the vehicle in question is not got badly damaged as alleged in the complaint as such the complainant is not entitled for the entire  IDV of the vehicle as prayed. The complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence in respect to the accident in question resulting in such a huge damage to the tune of IDV of the vehicle in question. Moreover, despite repeated letters dated 09.11.2016, 07.12.2016, 16.01.2017 and 25.01.2017 complainant failed to provide the following documents to the ins. Co. as well as failed to place on record before this Commission:

                        i) police report as proof of accident

                        ii) clarification letter with proof regarding actual cause of loss

                        iii) medical details of the driver

                        iv) any proof of accident

                        v) vehicle purchase invoice and delivery chalan

            Although the complainant has not sustained any injury yet the onus is on the  complainant to establish that the vehicle in question got badly damaged and as such he is entitled for the IDV of the vehicle in question. Besides two photographs nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to substainiate the loss in question . The photograph of the vehicle placed on record shows only minor damages in the vehicle due to skit and does not suggest any huge damage as alleged in the complaint. In the absence of documentary evidence in respect to the loss in question we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to substantiate the accident in question thereof the damages in question and as such failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

12.       In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by OP Ins. Co. in the light of the non submission of the requisite documents as well as violation of the policy terms  and conditions. We therefore find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

            File be consigned to record room.

13.     Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   03.07.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR)                       (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                  (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                                MEMBER                                         MEMBER