Delhi

East Delhi

CC/85/2021

KARAM VEER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER/DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

DEVESH KUMAR MALAN

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 85/2021

 

	KARAMVEER SINGH S/O SHRI PURAN SINGH R/O 145, NEAR SHIV MANDIR, KONDLI, DELHI - 110096	….Complainant
Versus
	SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH SANLAM, SOUTH AFRICA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER/DIRECTOR/CEO CORPORATE OFFICE AT: E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR – 302022 (RAJASTHAN)	……OP1
	SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH SANLAM, SOUTH AFRICA, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE AT: 506-507, 5TH FLOOR, PRAGATI DEEP BUILDING, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, DELHI – 110092	……OP2

 

Date of Institution	:	04.03.2021
Judgment Reserved on	:	24.08.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	13.10.2023

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service in not reimbursing the amount of repair spent on his vehicle on account of accident of his vehicle. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he is the owner of vehicle No.DL7CT2284 and is having an insurance policy from OP1 being Policy No.101046/31/18/002855 valid from 27.06.2017 to 26.06.2018 but unfortunately on 16.02.2018 at around 09:00 PM the vehicle of the complainant which was being driven by one Sh. Sandeep Routel Son of Kharak Singh Routal resident of Deep Puram Colony, Aurangabad, Chata, Mathura, clashed the vehicle with side railing of the bridge and fell down into the river due to which the car suffered several damages and even the said Sandeep Routel who was driving the vehicle succumbed to the injuries and subsequently the vehicle could be taken out from the river, only with the help of local police and even the postmortem of Sh. Sandeep Routel was conducted by the Police.  The complainant informed the OP upon which a surveyor was appointed who assured him that all the expenses on repair would be reimbursed and after completing all the legal formalities complainant took the vehicle from the place of accident to authorized service centre of Maruti Suzuki at Sector 1 Noida namely Rohan Motors and got the vehicle repaired upon which a bill of Rs.2,95,180/- was raised but OP did not reimburse the amount despite writing e-mails and letters and ultimately the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.2,95,180/- to the said Rohan Motors and then filed the claim but the same was rejected by the OP where after the complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.06.2019 to the OP  which was not replied and ultimately he has filed the present complaint case against OP before this Commission thereby claiming repair expenses of Rs.2,95,180/- transportation charges/towing charges of Rs.4500/-, insurance amount of the deceased driver of Rs.200000/-, compensation of Rs.100000/- travel expense for reaching the office of OP Rs.25,000/-, legal notice expenses of Rs.11,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/- thereby totaling Rs.6,90,600/- and it is prayed that OP be directed to reimburse the same with interest @ 24% p.a. 
3. The OP was served and received the copy of complaint on 29.07.2021 but thereafter did not appear on 27.02.2021 and was proceeded Ex-parte.  Matter was fixed for Ex-parte evidence but complainant meanwhile told that there are chances of settlement but subsequently it was informed that settlement was not possible.  The complainant’s counsel appeared on 06.04.2022 and informed the Commission that Order of proceeding the OP, as Ex-parte, being order dated 27.10.2021 has been stayed by the Hon’ble SCDRC.  The Hon’ble SCDRC ultimately allowed the appeal of OP and set-a-side the order dated 06.04.2022 and was again given an opportunity to file written statement but OP did not file written statement on 18.11.2022 and complainant meanwhile filed his evidence.  Another counsel for OP Sh. Harsh Pratap Advocate appeared on 29.05.2023 and sought adjournment but it is observed that written statement was not filed even on that day.  OP filed written statement on 12.07.2023 along with an application under section 5 of limitation act for condonation of delay along with affidavit of evidence without any order and after hearing the arguments on the application seeking condonation of delay the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed on 13.07.2023.  It is specifically observed that there was no order thereby giving directions to OP to file evidence but it filed evidence also, but since the written statement of OP has not been allowed to be taken on record, the evidence of OP also cannot be considered.    
4. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
5. The complainant in the complaint has prayed that he be given repair expenses of Rs.2,95,180/- for transportation charges/towing charges of Rs.4500/-, insurance amount of the deceased driver of Rs.2,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- travel expense for reaching the office of OP of Rs.25,000/-, legal notice expenses of Rs.11,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/- thereby totaling Rs.6,90,600/- and it is prayed that OP be directed to reimburse the same with interest @ 24% p.a. 
6. The Commission has enquired as to whether the person who was driving the vehicle was a paid driver or whether any premium has been given by the complainant for availing the life insured of the said person as the policy says that the premium has been paid as Rs.100/- for personal accident cover to the owner/ driver and premium of Rs.50/- has been paid for the paid driver to the Insurance Company.  The counsel appearing for complainant submits that the vehicle was being driven by a friend of the complainant but not by the paid driver therefore complainant has not paid any premium for insuring the life of the person who was driving the vehicle and therefore the same is not admissible under the Consumer Protection Act.  Even otherwise the counsel for OP has placed on record an order of the Court of Sh. Hawa Singh, Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, Nuh Haryana where the parents of the said deceased have already filed a compensation claim before that Court against this very insurance company and that matter has been decided in favour of the parents of the said driver and an amount of Rs.9,01,480/- has been ordered to be paid. 
7. The Commission is not referring any opinion of such compensation part but fact is that the said amount is not payable under this present complaint filed by the complainant as no premium for the same has been paid, thereby insuring the life of said person. 
8. As far as other facts are concerned the defence of the OP has already been closed as his application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement has already been dismissed and as such there is no valid defence of the OP on record. 
9. After perusing the evidence the Commission is of the opinion that complainant is able to prove the payment of the repair bill was not paid by the OP despite having a valid policy and therefore OP is held liable for deficiency in providing service to the complainant.  Complaint is therefore allowed by holding that OP would pay the following to the complainant:

• OP to pay Rs.2,95,180/- along with Rs.4500/- for towing/ transportation charges to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5%. 
• OP would pay Rs.25,000/- towards Compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation charges. 

This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order unless OP would pay an interest @ 9% on all above amounts.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 13.10.2023.