BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.062 of 2012
Date of Instt. 30.01.2012
Date of decision 25.02.2015
Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Surat Singh r/o 179/23, Krishanpura Panipat.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
SHRIRAM General Insurance Co.Ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302022 through their local office at SCO No.410, Mugal Canal, Market Karnal.
.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……Member.
Present:- Sh.Sushil Kumar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No. HR-06M-9812 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP vide insurance policy No. 102018/31/11/000526 valid from 10.5.2010 to 9.5.2011. It has been further alleged that on 8.12.2010 Sh.Suresh Kumar, elder brother of the complainant had gone to Delhi for some personal work and on return at Night in the area of Ganaur one cattle (Neel Gaya) suddenly came in front of the said car and accident took place and the vehicle in question was damaged. The matter was reported to the police and the DDR NO.19 dated 9.12.2010 was registered at P.S.Ganaur. The matter was also reported to the OP. Surveyor Sh.Punkaj Rohilla was deputed by the OP who inspected the vehicle. The complainant submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities but the OP failed to pay the claim which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents which will be discussed at the relevant documents.
2. On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the present complaint was bad for joinder and mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties etc. It was contended that the complainant is not entitled to any claim as he has been guilty of violation of mandatory terms and conditions of the policy. It was contended that as per terms of the policy, the intimation of loss or damage to the insured property has to be given immediately to the company but in the present case the alleged accident is alleged to have taken place on 8.12.2010 and the matter was reported to the company on 27.12.2010 and thus there is delay of 19 days in giving intimation. Thus, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also contended that version given in the present complaint and DDR did not match and as such the actual state of affair are on some other footings and the complainant has filed the present false and vexatious complaint.
On merits, insurance of the vehicle, has not been denied and it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. As per the contention raised by the OP the claim has rightly been repudiated because there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim has also been repudiated on the ground that there was delay intimation to the OPs.
5. The learned counsel for the OPs have also placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National commission in case Devinder Kumar Versus NIC in revision petition No. 3840 of 2011 decided on 2.4.2012 in order to infer that claim has rightly been repudiated because there was delay in reporting the matter to the OP
6. As per arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant the delay in reporting the matter to the OPs was not material because the FIR has been lodged promptly and as such the repudiation of the claim was not valid. Reliance has been placed upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in cases OIC Versus Charan Dass revision petition no.1324 of 2012 decided on 1.8.2012 and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission in First appeal No.140 of 2014 decided on 5.3.2012 titled G.M.Reliance Versus Bijende Singh and Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Vs.Rajesh Kumar, in First appeal No.43 of 2014 decided on 10.3.2014.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that recently Hon’ble State Commission has laid down an elaborate law vide judgment dated 9.05.2014 passed in First Appeal No.66 of 2014 Sukram Pal Vs. NIC. It was contended that the Hon’ble State Commission has referred the circular dated 20.09.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and according to the said circular the Insurance Companies should not prevent in settling of genuine claims, particularly when there was delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances. It was also argued that the Chairman of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has advised the insurance companies to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle the claim with utmost care and caution. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon,ble State Commission in Sukram Pal,s case (Supra), we hold that there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP in not paying the claim amount to the complainant. Vide report dated 13.01.2011, surveyor Sh.Pankaj Rohgilla has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.148137.50paise in respect of damages sustained by the vehicle in question.
10. Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.148137/- ( i.e. as assessed by the surveyor) to the complainant alongwith interest t @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30.01.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The OPs shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
25.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Ashok Kumar Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co.
Present:- Sh.Sushil Kumar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.
Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 25.2.2015.
Announced
24.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.Sushil Kumar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.
Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
25.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
