Haryana

Karnal

CC/418/2022

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Angrez Singh Pannu

29 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 418 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.22.07.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:29.03.2024

 

Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Ishwar Singh, resident of H.No.101, Jatt Mohalla, Village Dupedi 93, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. Aadhar No.4983 9531 3612

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, registered and Corporate Office E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur Jaipur 302022 (Rajasthan), through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.410, Ist Floor, Mugal Canal Market, now at present Meerut Road near Sarvodhya  Hospital, D.C. Colony, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager.

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

          

Argued by:  Shri Angrez Singh, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Anil Kumar Vij, counsel for the OPs

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

 

ORDER:     

                 

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is registered owner of Hyundai Xcent Car bearing registration No.HR45C-1654 and the same was got insured with the OPs vide insurance policy No.10062/31/21/035351 valid from 31.03.2021 to 30.03.2022. On 15.02.2022, complainant was coming from Assandh to Phapharana on Meerwala Road near the canal, suddenly a Neel Cow came in front of the car and struck, resultantly the car became unbalanced and struck into the tractor trolley and from the back side of truck was coming and hit into the car from the back side, in this accident the car was damaged badly. Intimation in this regard was given to OPs at their toll free number and also paid Rs.3300/- online for toeing the car. The surveyor of the OPs alongwith toeing machine reached at the spot and taken the car at Panipat Agency. The official of Panipat Agency refused to repair the car and said to take the car to Bhatia Motors ITI Chowk, Karnal because he used to repair the vehicles under cashless policy. Thereafter, surveyor of OPs and complainant had taken the vehicle in the workshop of Bhatia Motors ITI Chowk, Karnal, with the help of toeing machine and complainant has paid the charges for shifting the vehicle from Panipat to Karnal. The engineer of Bhatia Motors, prepared the estimate cost as Rs.2,69,443/-. The officials of OPs have taken all the documents and told that they would settle the case of complainant very soon. On asking of the surveyor of OPs, the said vehicle has been repaired and total cost of repair came to Rs.2,69,443/-. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs several times and requested to pay the insured amount but the OPs postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly issued a letter dated 23.04.2022 on the flimsy grounds mentioning therein that there have been deliberate and willful misrepresentations on the part of complainant. The said letter was duly replied and has cleared the situation. After that OPs assured the complainant that they would pass the claim but despite repeated requests the claim was not settled. The said car is still parked in the parking of Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal and they are charging Rs.200/- per day as parking charges since 16.02.2022. The said car was purchased on hire purchase basis and the complainant is also paying the loan installments. The complainant served a registered legal notice upon the OPs and the said notice was duly received by the OPs but despite that, the claim of the complainant has not been settled. In this way there is  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; concealment of true and material facts; limitation, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR45C-1654 Hyundai Xcent having Engine No.G4LAJM908947, Chassis No.MALA741CLJM322319. The OPs received claim intimation regarding damage/ loss of insured vehicle on 15.02.2022 and registered the claim and deputed a surveyor and loss assessor Mr.Amarjot Singh Anand, who inspected the spot. The said surveyor and loss assessor has obtained the documents and photographs of insured damage vehicle. After completion of survey of damage vehicle, surveyor has submitted his report to the insurance company. On the ground of misrepresentation of facts and breach of trust, the insurance company expressed his liability to considered the claim. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of complainant on 23.04.2022 with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as on the surveyor report alongwith documents available on the claim file. There is no deficiency in service on the parts of OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of estimate report Ex.C2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C3, copy of reply Ex.C4, copy of vehicle condition report Ex.C5, copy of payment receipt Ex.C6, copy of RC Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 05.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs have tendered into evidence affidavit of Santosh Kumar Sharma Ex.OPW1/A, copy of policy Ex.OP1, copy of survey report Ex.OP2, copy of photographs Ex.OP3 and copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 27.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is the registered owner of car bearing registration no.HR45C-1654 and the same was insured with the OPs. During subsistence of the insurance policy, the car in question was met with an accident and brought to the workshop of Bhatia Motors, Karnal. The complainant informed the OPs regarding the said accident. OPs appointed a surveyor to investigate the matter. All the relevant documents were submitted to the OPs as well as to the surveyor but despite that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on false and frivolous grounds. The car is still lying in the workshop of Bhatia Motors and Bhatia Motors is demanding Rs.200/- per day as parking charges and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had intimated a claim with the OPs on account of alleged loss/damage of vehicle in question. Claim was duly processed, the surveyor had conducted the survey, assessed the loss and submitted his report. The claim of the complainant stands repudiated as the ground of misrepresentation. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter Ex.C3/OP4 dated 23.04.2022, the relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under:-

“With reference to the captioned claim preferred by you, we appointed surveyor Mr.Amarjot Singh Anand, and we wish to state that there have been deliberate and willful misrepresentations on your part as to the vehicle produced by you  for insurance (as per pre-inspection photograph) is differ from the damaged vehicle produced for the claim.

On the ground of misrepresentations of facts and breach of trust we express our inability to consider the claim. We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. While expressing our inability to pay this claim due to the above mentioned reason, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly.

We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. While expressing our inability to pay this claim due to the above mentioned reason, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly.”  

 

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that vehicle produced by the complainant at the time of pre-inspection is differ from the damaged vehicle. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. From the insurance cover note Ex.C1 and registration certificate Ex.C7, it is proved that the insured vehicle and the damaged vehicle are one and the same. Since, the registration number, colour, make, engine number and chessis number are same of the damaged vehicle with the insured vehicle, then, how the OPs can allege that the vehicle which was brought at the time of pre-inspection and damaged vehicle are different. Moreover, the complainant has clarified the facts vide letter Ex.C4, while submitting that before passing his vehicle, he repaired his vehicle in which new number plate was put by RTO and all the stickers were removed and before passing, he repaired his vehicle front bumper and all the seat covers also substituted with new cover but OPs without considering the reply Ex.C4 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. Hence, the ground taken by the OPs while repudiating the claim of the complainant is not justified in the eyes of law.  

12.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

13.           The complainant has claimed Rs.2,69,443/- as repaired charges on the basis of rough estimate prepared by Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal but the complainant has not placed on file any tax invoice/final bill of the repair of vehicle in question, rather the surveyor of the OPs has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,33,882/- vide his report Ex.OP2. Hence, the report of the surveyor will prevail. In this regard we are relying upon the authority 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938.  

14.           The complainant has alleged that till today the car in question is lying in the garage of Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal, and said garage is demanding Rs.200/- per day as parking charges and without paying the said charges, he is not ready to release the vehicle in question to the complainant. The said vehicle is lying in the garage of Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal, due to not paying the claim amount to the complainant, therefore, the OPs are also liable to pay the parking charges, if any.             

15.           Keeping in view, the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OPs while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency, which is proved otherwise genuine.   

16.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,33,882/- (the loss assessed by the surveyor of the OPs) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11000/- for the litigation expenses. We further direct the OPs to pay parking charges, if any, to the Bhatia Motors, ITI Chowk, Karnal. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of 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

Dated: 29.03.2024                            

                                                          President,

                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                             Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                     Member