| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.96 of 10.6.2021 Decided on : 18-07-2023 Gurtej Singh alias Gurtej Singh Sidhu Advocate S/o Kaur Singh R/o House No.22374, Street No.3, Shant Nagar, Bathinda ........Complainant Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited Near Gurudawara Bhai Jagta Ji Goniana, Tehsil and District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager .......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.Dharminder Sharma, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh.Sunder Gupta, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Gurtej Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against The New India Assurance Company Limited (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly, the facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of one Maruti Dzire Car bearing registration No.PB-03AE-8358 insured with opposite party No.1 valid from 31.10.2020 to 30.10.2021. It is alleged that on 27.12.2020, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Bus Stand Sangat. It was got repaired through Modern Motors (Authorised Dealer), Bathinda after getting its damages assessed from the surveyor Sh.Kewal Krishan Bansal and bill amount to Rs.7600/- was sent to opposite party by Modern Motors Bathinda through the surveyor of the company who has passed the bill. It is further alleged that although, the total amount of the repair was Rs.10,456/-, but the amount assessed for payment is Rs.7600/-, as per assessment done by the surveyor. The complainant several times approached opposite party through its agent Manoj Singla and requested for payment of the bill, but the bill was not cleared by the company. As the vehicle of the complainant was/is duly insured. As such, the complainant is legally entitled for reimbursement of the amount of Rs.10,456/- from the company and is also entitled for Rs.50,000/- on account of damages due to the harassment caused by the company. It is further alleged that the claim of the complainant was not cleared. He got issued a legal notice dated 24.2.2021 through his counsel calling upon opposite party to clear the bill within 15 days. After the receipt of this notice, the company/opposite party has passed the claim of Rs.1771/-, but the remaining claim was rejected. The complainant also got issued a final notice dated 22.4.2021 calling upon opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.10,456/- to the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to pay Rs.10,456/- and Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written written version and raised the legal objections that the contract of insurance is Uberrimae Fidei, i.e utmost good faith. It requires highest standard of good faith during the disclosure of all the material facts that could influence the decision of the other party at the time of insurance contract. As the complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts at the time of obtaining insurance policy bearing No.36060731200100000789 effective from 31.10.2020 to 30.10.2021 for his car bearing RC. No.PB-03AE-8358 regarding the previous claim obtained from previous insurance company GODDIGIT General insurance Company Limited regarding his car vide claim No.202000119129 regarding the accident dated 15.9.2020 regarding which the insured has obtained the own damage claim of the car, but at the time of getting the insurance policy from insurance company, GODIGIT General Insurance Company Limited regarding his car vide claim No. 202000119129 regarding the accident dated 15.9.2020 regarding which the insured has obtained the own damage claim of the car, but at the time of getting the insurance policy from opposite party, the complainant has claimed NCB to the tune of 50% on the ground that no own damage claim has been lodged with previous insurance policy. In this way, the complainant has suppressed the concealed the facts, so his claim was settled as per IRDA notification received through head office of opposite party vide No.HO/MTD/OD/2019CIR.No.11/MARKETING :IBD:ADMN:528. As such, lawful claim of the complainant has been paid and nothing remains due. As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Other legal objections are that after receipt of intimation regarding the accident loss to the insured car Er.Kewal Krishan Bansal was deputed to inspect the insured vehicle and assess the loss. He submitted his report dated 15.1.2021 and assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.7800/- only, but total amount was not paid to the complainant as the complainant has misstated the true facts and has obtained the NCB bonus to the tune of 50% at the time of getting the insurance policy, so his claim was settled as per notification of IRDA and head office and accordingly 50% was deducted from the assessed amount on account of granting NCB to the tune of 50%. Accordingly Rs.4446/- was deducted from the assessed of Rs.8892/- and Rs.1000/- was deducted on account of excess clause of the insurance policy and Rs.92/- was deducted on account of salvage value and thereafter NCB premium of Rs.1341/- alongwith 18% GST was deducted that was legally recoverable from the insured on account of false statement made by him at the time of getting the car insured from opposite party. As such, net amount of Rs.1771/- was paid to the complainant and nothing remains due. It is further pleaded that it is set principle of law that who seeks equity must do equity and since the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Court, as such, he is not entitled for any relief from this Commission. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, opposite party has reiterated its version as taken in the legal objections as detailed above and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 28.5.2021, (Ex.C1) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C8). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavits of H.S Dhaliwal and Kewal Krishan dated 6.5.2022 (Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2) and documents, (Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/15). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for complainant has argued that the vehicle met with an accident and amount of Rs.10,456/- was spent on the repair. However, surveyor deputed by opposite party assessed the loss as Rs.7600/- vide report, (Ex.OP1/9), but till date opposite party has not paid any amount to the complainant. Counsel for opposite party has argued that insurance and accidental loss to the vehicle is admitted, but he has alleged that the complainant had concealed that during existence of previous policy with GODIGIT General Insurance Company Limited, he had availed benefits of insurance and as per report of Insurance information Bureau of India, (Ex.OP1/5), the said fact was confirmed and accordingly, amount was deducted as per circular, (Ex.OP1/15) and complainant is entitled to receive Rs.1721/-. As such, there is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite party. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. It is admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite party and as per policy of insurance, (Ex.C3), the complainant has availed no claim bonus amount of Rs.1341/-. However, as per Ex.OP1/5, it is confirmed that the complainant had availed accidental insurance from GODIGIT General Insurance Company Limited. However, we have gone through the calculations sheet placed on record by opposite party, (Ex.OP1/4), as per which amount of Rs.4446/- was deducted out of the total assessed amount of Rs.8892/- and Rs.1341 plus 18% G.S.T from the total payable amount. This Commission is of the view that opposite party has not been able to explain that the complainant was aware about the circular, (Ex.OP1/15) and as such, opposite party cannot claim to have rightfully deducted the amount. Accordingly, act of opposite party of having deducted amount of Rs.4446/- amounts to deficiency in services. Deduction of Rs.1341/- is however justified. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4446/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10.6.2021 till realization. No order as to costs. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 18-07-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
