Haryana

Kaithal

427/19

Dilbag Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Manoj Saharan

02 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.427/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 12.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:02.05.2023.

Dilbag Singh son of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of Village Chosala, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bldg. 87 M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Manager (Regd. Office).

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Manoj Saharan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. C.S.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Dilbag Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his car Marka Beat bearing registration No.HR-08P-0460 with the OPs vide policy No.35440031170100002859 valid for the period w.e.f. 29.06.2017 to 28.06.2018.  The said car met with an accident on 18.06.2018.  Intimation regarding accident was given to OPs and the surveyor of OPs inspected the spot and reported that the vehicle in question is completely damaged.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents; that just after the intimation regarding accident, the OPs deputed Mr. Rakesh Kaushik, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who submitted his report dt. 03.10.2018 and perusal of the same, it is revealed that the vehicle caught fire and the said surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,27,000/-.  It has also been found that the insured had not provided the fire brigade slip and driver medical.  It is further stated that vide letter dt. 20.08.2019 the insured was requested to provide fire brigade report and duly filled and completed claim form and cancelled cheque for further processing of claim.  However, after waiting sufficiently, competent authority again vide final reminder through letter dt. 20.09.2019 again requested to provide the said documents within 5 days.  However, since the insured failed to provide the said documents, as such in the absence of the same, claim could not be processed and was closed as “no claim”.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got insured his car Marka Beat bearing registration No.HR-08P-0460 with the OPs vide policy No.35440031170100002859 valid for the period w.e.f. 29.06.2017 to 28.06.2018 as per Annexure-C5.  It is further argued that the said car met with an accident on 18.06.2018.  The complainant also got lodged DDR in P.S.Sardar Kaithal on 21.06.2018 in this regard as per Annexure-C8.  Intimation regarding accident was given to OPs and the surveyor of OPs inspected the spot and reported that the vehicle in question is completely damaged.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops neither repudiated the claim of complainant nor settled the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that just after the intimation regarding accident, the OPs deputed Mr. Rakesh Kaushik, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who submitted his report dt. 03.10.2018 and perusal of the same, it is revealed that the vehicle caught fire and the said surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,27,000/-.  It is further argued that the insured had not provided the fire brigade slip and driver medical.  It is further argued that vide letter dt. 20.08.2019 as per Annexure-R4 the insured was requested to provide fire brigade report and duly filled and completed claim form and cancelled cheque for further processing of claim.  However, after waiting sufficiently, competent authority again vide final reminder through letter dt. 20.09.2019 as per Annexure-R5 again requested to provide the said documents within 5 days.  However, since the insured failed to provide the said documents, as such in the absence of the same, claim could not be processed and was closed as “no claim”.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The main objection of OPs is that the complainant did not submit fire brigade report with date and time, claim form and cancelled cheque.  The first question regarding fire brigade report is concerned.  In this regard, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards DDR dt. 21.06.2018 Annexure-C8 wherein it is clearly mentioned that due to accident on 18.06.2018, the vehicle caught fire and burnt.  So, the contention of OPs that the complainant did not submit the fire brigade slip has no force.  The another contention of OPs is that the complainant did not submit the claim form with the OPs.  To rebut the said contention, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the letter dt. 22.08.2019 written by complainant to OPs as per Annexure-C4, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the complainant had submitted all the required documents with the claim form as demanded by the OPs and on the said letter, there is receiving of OPs.  So, the contention of OPs that the complainant did not submit the claim form has also no force.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  So far as the question of non-submission of cancelled cheque is concerned that is mandatory for the complainant to submit the same with the OPs.        

9.         Now the question arises before us that what amount of compensation, complainant is entitled for.  In the present case, the surveyor namely Sh. Rakesh Kaushik has assessed the net loss amounting to Rs.2,27,000/- as per his report mentioned at last page, which is Annexure-R3 on the file.  So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the present complaint.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority cited in Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII, 2018(1) CLT page 508 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Insurance claim-Surveyor’s report-Held-That surveyors are appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938 and their reports are the basis for settling the insurance claim-To disregard the same-The complainant had not filed any objection to the surveyor’s report-Thus if there are no objections to the surveyor’s report-it is to be accepted-Appeal dismissed.  We also rely upon the authority cited in 2(2008) CPJ page 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 provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.    

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the complainant to deposit cancelled cheque with the OPs within 15 days from the date of this order and thereafter, the OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,27,000/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within 30 days from the date of deposit of cancelled cheque by the complainant with the OPs.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall submit the salvage with the Ops and salvage will be the property of insurer.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs are failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.2,27,000/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the said amount for the defaulted period.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.   

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.