Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/210/2017

Inder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anirudh Kush

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/210/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	08/03/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	16/11/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Inder Singh S/o Sh. Shyam Lal, r/o H.No.203, Vill. Kishangarh, U.T. Chandigarh, presently residing at Vill. Tanda Johwal, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

(1)  The Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd., Suite No.2, 1^st Floor, SCO No. 174-175, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

(2)  The Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd., 10^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, through is Authorized Signatory.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Anirudh Kush, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Inder Singh (hereinafter called the Complainant) has filed this consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he got his Scorpio DX bearing Regn.No.CH-04-B-9235 duly insured with the Opposite Parties from 09.04.2016 to 08.04.2017. During the currency of the policy, on 13.01.2017, the vehicle in question met with an accident and was badly damaged. After giving due intimation to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant took the said vehicle to the Authorized Service Centre, who prepared an assessment cost of Rs.2,36,590/-. The said claim was sent by the Surveyor to the Opposite Parties for passing, but to no avail. Even the Complainant tried his level best to get his claim passed from the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Ultimately, to the utter surprise of the Complainant, vide letter dated 02.02.2017, the Opposite Parties repudiated his claim on false and frivolous pretexts. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.          Opposite Parties in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that as the claimed loss was not found to be concurrent with date of loss and nature of accident as stated by the insured/ Complainant, therefore, vide letter dated 02.02.2017, the claim of the Complainant was rightly repudiated. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record.

 

6.          The grievance of the Complainant, in nutshell, is that the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 02.02.2017, repudiated his genuine claim on flimsy grounds.

 

7.          The Opposite Parties, while defending the claim of the Complainant, has claimed that as per the physical observation of vehicle, there is heavy and dark rust over the damaged portion of the vehicle and technically such type of heavy and dark rust cannot happen in just 3 days. Thus, the date of loss mentioned by the Complainant in the claim form is not accurate. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, from the insurance documents, issued by the Opposite Parties, these conditions do not appear to have been mentioned, hence the Opposite Parties deemed to have issued the insurance policy on the actual physical condition of the vehicle on that date and in the absence of any such observations at the time of issuance of the policy, we are of the concerted view that the damage/loss was due to accident of the vehicle. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties have not been able to produce any concrete documentary evidence with regard to the fact that said patches were very old that is to say that whether they had existed earlier than the date of issue of the insurance policy. Hence, in these set of circumstances, to our mind, action of the Opposite Parties in repudiating the entire claim of the Complainant on the ground that damages do not coincide with the cause and nature of loss is not concurrent with the date of loss & nature of accident, is not legally tenable and is just a ploy to escape from their legal liability to pay the claim against the insured vehicle.

 

8.          Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties urged that after receiving the intimation with regard to the accident of the vehicle in question, a Surveyor namely Er. Naveen Kumar was immediately deputed to assess the loss and the said Surveyor after doing the necessary inspection submitted his survey report (Ex.OP-2), wherein he had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.85,815/-. Notwithstanding the submission of the aforesaid survey report dated 20.12.2016, the Opposite Parties failed to pay the said amount to the Complainant and chose to repudiate the claim of the Complainant in a purely mechanical manner, without due application of judicious mind.  

 

9.          In view of the foresaid discussions, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed to:-

 

[a]  Pay Rs.85,815/- (as assessed by the Surveyor as per survey report Ex.OP-2) to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

10.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

 

11.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16^th Nov., 2017                                                 Sd/-                                                             (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

                                 

                                                             Sd/-                  

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”