DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC 187/2011 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
Prem Kumar Bablani
S/o Sh. Kishan Chand Bablani
R/o 28/130,
West patel nagar, Delhi
..........Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Ext. ,
New Delhi
..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
The complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration no. DL 4CJ 3817. He had a policy of insurance in respect of the said car from the OP. During the subsistence of the said policy, the vehicle was damaged in an accident on 16.12.2009. It is, alleged by the complainant that he had taken the vehicle to a nearby service station and had informed the OP about the same. He has further alleged that the OP had deputed Mr. Mukesh Mendriatta to examine the vehicle and assess the loss. He has alleged that instead of Mr. Mukesh Mendriatta, his brother Mr. Mukesh Mendriatta has raised a illegal demand from him which he had failed to oblige. He had taken up the matter with the surveyor but to no effect. The complainant has alleged that in the circumstances he had got the car repaired and had got it examined by another surveyor who had filed his report. The complainant had lodged a claim which was repudiated by theOP vide letter dated 22.7.2010. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and has approached this forum for redressal of his grievance. The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complaint is motivated and based on false facts. Paras 2 and 3 of the reply on merits of the written statement is relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this complaint and is being reproduced as under
2. That the contents of para no. 4 of the complaint, save that which are a matter of record, are false as stated and hence denied. However , the vehicle bearing no. DL 4CJ 3117 (TATA/Indica/ Model-1999) was insured vide policy no. 272201/31/2010/1051 for the period w.e.f. 10.8.2009 to 09.08.2010 for one year only for an insured’s declared value of Rs. 91,374/- subject to policy terms and conditions and the rest part of the corresponding para are wrong and vague hence denied. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question was physically inspected by M/s Auto Risk Management services Pvt. Ltd and its report was submitted prioer to the insurance coverage in which some damages are shown, which also proves that the vehicles of the complainant was in damaged condition prior to the issuance of the insurance certificate (Copy of inspection report dt. 10.8.2009, insurance policy and its terms and conditions are collectively enclosed as an Annexure –OP/A.
3. That the contents of the para no. 5 to 14 of the complaint, save that which are a matter of record, are false as stated and hence denied. It is emphatically denied that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 16.12.2009. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant miserably failed to explain how and where the vehicle in question met with an accident. Even he also failed to explain the above facts in his complaint also. Which proved how the complainant is lust for the money only? However, it is submitted that the claim was reported to the OP company by the complainant only on 18.12.2009 through an intimation letter (without mentioning the date) after the delay about 42 to 44 hrs, of its occurrence, alleging the accident of the vehicle, whereas the incident was occurred as alleged on 16.12.2009 at about 6. 00 pm but the complainant miserably failed to explain the nature of damages as alleged as well cooperate the independent surveyor having license from the IRDA as deputed by the OP company.
After receiving information , about the accident of the vehicle the OP registered the claim and deputed an independent surveyor Mr. Mukesh Menditratta, ( Surveyor and loss assessor) immediately for the spot survey of the loss and the complainant was also informed to submit that claim form along with the necessary documents but the complainant failed to complete the claim formalities in time despite letter sent by the surveyor as well as the OP company. Moreover, during the survey of the vehicle in question, the complainant tried to impress the surveyor just to get the survey report in his favour but when the said surveyor denied to accept any consideration then the complainant started threatening to the surveyor as well as of the company official and just to gain the sympathy of the court, the complainant created dispute upon the survey of the vehicle in question. However, the surveyor conducted his survey and opined that, ‘ no fresh damages in the vehicle in question which attributes to the cause of loss mentioned in the claim form. Further, it was noticed that damages shown vehicle were fabricated i.e. damaged parts were fitted in the vehicle to look it accidental’ and accordingly filed his survey report dt. 21.1.2010 alongwith necessary photographs. It is the claim of the complainant and after going through report of the surveyor and after thorough consideration upon the claim documents i.e. claim-form , estimates and nature of damages alleged repudiate the claim of the complainant and sent a repudiation letter dated 27.7.2010 under the policy terms and conditions to the complainat , which is admittedly received by the complainant (The copy of survey report dt. 16.1.2010 and repudiation letter dated 22.7.2010 are enclosed collectively as annexure-OP/B.
It is also submitted that the OP cannot be held liable for the delay and negligence of the complainant. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant was provided a policy of the vehicle along with the terms and conditons under the procedure of the company. It is further stated that any cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the OP company. It is vehemently denied that the OP was deficient ant any stage. The surveyor was deputed immediately when the claim was reported bythe insured and it was only the complainant who has fulfills violated the policy terms and conditions. In fact the insured violated the policy terms and conditions on various occasions which is also evident from the various documents as collected by the investigators/ surveyors which are mentioned as above and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In-fact the complainant has not placed/ stated, true and correct facts and tried to misguide this Hon’ble Forum by twisting the facts as to justify his claim.
The OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The learned counsel for the OP has taken us through the copy of the survey report which has been placed on record. The survey report shows that there was no fresh damage to the vehicle in question which could be attributed to the clause of loss mentioned in the claim form. The surveyor has further observed that the damages shown in the vehicle were fabricated. The learned counsel has contended that the surveyor was an independent person and there is no reason as to why his report should not be believed. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the OP with which we agree. A surveyor appointed to assess the loss is a neutral person and his report cannot be brushed aside without any substantive reasons being given on record. We have seen the report of the surveyor and we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground to discard the said report. The OP who had acted on the basis of the said report is not guilty of any deficiency in service. We, therefore, hold that there are no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
(S N SHUKLA) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
