Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/166/2022

VANDANA CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

RBT/Complaint Case No. 166/22

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Ms. Vandana Choudhary D/o Sh. Girish Choudhary R/o H.No. 95/2, Village Hasanpur, Behind Gaurav Apartment, IP Extension, New Delhi		Complainant
		Versus
		Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office at:- B 08, Unit No. 402 & 403, GD ITL Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 Through its General Manager		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		06.09.18 02.11.23 10.11.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is the owner of vehicle Honda CRV bearing registration no. DL 01 CV 8556 and insured with the Opposite Party vide policy bearing no. 101047/31/17/016556 from 02.01.17 to 01.01.18 and insured amount was Rs. 5,64,000/-. On 26.12.17 the Complainant’s brother was driving the said vehicle and the vehicle was met with an accident. After the accident recovery van took the vehicle to the Crown Honda Servicing Station, Sector 63, Noida, UP andon 28.12.17 Complainant informed Opposite Party about the accident and agent of Opposite Party reached and after inspection insurance agent informed the total expenditure of Rs. 10,11,222/- and service station persons also charged Rs. 8.000/- for advance estimation and file charge. The agent of Opposite Party asked the Complainant to file the claim thereafter Complainant filed claim with Opposite Party on 28.12.17.The Complainant stated to have requested Opposite Party many times to settle the claim but no satisfactory response was received by Complainant. The Complainant had sent legal notice to Opposite Party on 02.07.18 and Opposite Party is directed to pay the sum of claim amount of Rs. 5,64,000/- but Opposite Party failed to do so. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for the claim amount of Rs. 5,64,000/- along with interest @  24 % p.a. from the date of issuance till its final realization and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party entered the appearance and filed their reply. The Opposite Party while admitting the policy,took the preliminary objection that there was no deficiency on their part because immediately after the claim intimation the Opposite Party appointed an independent surveyor who after investigation submitted a report “the damages mentioned in this report or seen in photographs are not admissible in the event of any claim lodged.” It is contended by the Opposite Party that they repudiated the claim as NO claim on the ground that damages as claimed by complainant to the insured vehicle are old and seems to be pre-existing in nature. In view of above contentions the Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she had supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. Rama Raman, Legal Officer for Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the owner of subject vehicle which was insured with the Opposite Party. On 26.12.17 the Complainant’s brother was driving the said vehicle and the vehicle was met with an accident. After the accident recovery van took the vehicle to the Crown Honda Servicing Station, Sector 63, Noida, UP and on 28.12.17, Complainant informed Opposite Party about the accident and agent of Opposite Party reached and after inspection insurance agent informed the total expenditure of Rs. 10,11,222/- and service station persons also charged Rs. 8,000/- for advance estimation and file charge. Complainant filed claim with Opposite Party on 28.12.17 but till date,the claim amount has not been paid. This shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.
8. On the other hand, the Opposite Party’s contention is that immediately after the claim intimation, the Opposite Party appointed an independent surveyor who after investigation submitted a report “the damages mentioned in this report or seen in photographs are not admissible in the event of any claim lodged.” It is contended by the Opposite Party that they repudiated the claim as No claim on the ground that damages as claimed by Complainant to the insured vehicle are old and seems to be pre-existing in nature.
9. The perusal of material on record reveals that it is admitted that the subject vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party. The averment of the Complainant is that on the date of accident, the brother of the insured Complainant was driving the subject vehicle. It is the version of the Complainant that her brother’s car (insured vehicle) hit the divider while saving one motor cyclist coming from opposite side. It is also stated by the Complainant that her brother narrowly escaped the above accident.
10. It is to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the accident was reported such as FIR or DD entry. As per the complaint, the Complainant had not witnessed the accident herself and her brother who witnessed the whole incident has not been testified. In such case, the manner of said accident and the extent of damage to the insured vehicle ensuing from the said incident cannot be defined accurately. Hence, the version of the Complainant cannot be believed as the same has not been proved.
11.  On the other hand, in support of their contentions, the Opposite Party has relied upon the surveyor report and pre-inspection report showing that the damages as claimed by Complainant to the insured vehicle are old and seems to be pre-existing in nature. The Opposite Party has also produced the affidavit of the concerned surveyor in support of his findings which further corroborates the Opposite Party’ version.
12. Since the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has not been able to prove her case and consequently. In view of that, we do not see any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party as the Opposite Party has rightly rejected the claim of the Complainant.
13. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Order announced on 10.11.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President