| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 7.2.2017 Decided on: 17.3.2021 Ishan Sahni aged 25 years s/o Sh.Hari Om Sahni r/o H.No.B15/305,Sui Garan, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Sr. Divisional Manager.
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & H.O. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai through its CMD.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.K.S.Sidhu, counsel for complainant. Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Ishan Sahni (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Honda Amaze car bearing registration No.PB-11-BM-0223, model 2014 and got the same comprehensively insured with OP No.1 for the period from 14.4.2016 to 13.4.2017 for the sum assured of Rs.4,79,500/-and paid the premium of Rs.14,187/- .
- It is averred that on 8.7.2016 he was travelling by said car and near Panipat there was heavy rain due to which the traffic was moving very slow as all the road were flooded with water and while passing through the same suddenly the car of the complainant stopped and he tried to start the car but the car did not start. The complainant reported the matter to the OPs who instructed the complainant for getting the estimate prepared from workshop. As such the complainant brought the vehicle to M/s Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala, who estimated the loss of Rs.1,59,612/-.Thereafter OP No.1 deputed Mr.KPS Oberoi surveyor to assess the loss. Complainant completed all the formalities as desired by the OPs but he was shocked on receipt of letter dated 11.11.2016 with the remarks, “claim does not fall under the purview of the policy, because as per surveyor recommendation engine loss is due to your negligence”. After this the complainant approached the OPs and made request for reconsidering the claim but they refused to do so. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as a result of which complainant suffered lot of harassment and mental agony. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,59,612/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of loss time payment; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.33000/-as costs of litigation.
Reply/Written Statement - Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 11.11.2016 on the recommendation of the surveyor that the loss to the engine of the car in question has taken place due to the negligence of the insured ; that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint.
- On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is owner of the car in question and the same has been insured with the OP for the period from 14.4.2016 to 13.4.2017 for a sum of Rs.4.79 lacs after charging the premium as per IRDA guidelines. It is submitted that on receipt of information of loss on 13.7.2016, immediately OP No.1 deputed IRDA approved surveyor Sh.K.P.S.Oberoi of Patiala to assess the loss who in his report dated 26.8.2016 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,32,500/-and recommended to declare the claim as no claim because the damage was occurred due to negligence of the insured and accordingly the claim was rejected vide letter dated 11.11.2016.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of I.S.Sidhu, Regional Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of K.P.S.Oberoi, surveyor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
-
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased one Honda Amaze car bearing registration No.PB-11-BM-0223 model 2014 and the got the same comprehensively insured from 14.4.2016 to 13.4.2017 from OP No.1 for the sum assured of Rs.4,79.500/-.The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that on 8.7.2016 the complainant was travelling near Panipat and due to rain traffic was moving slowly, roads were flooded. The ld. counsel further argued that suddenly the car stopped and he tried again and again to start the car but it did not start. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant reported the matte to the OPs and they instructed to get the estimate and the estimate was prepared from Lally Motors for Rs.1,59612/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs appointed K.P.S.Obroi surveyor and he assessed the loss but the claim was wrongly repudiated. The ld. counsel has relied upon the citations New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.K.Bawa III(2009)CPJ 82, Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. G Sridhar Goud & Anr. III(2016) CPJ 155 (NC) and New India Assurance Co. Vs. Chamkaur Singh IV(2010) CPJ 339.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs has argued that claim was rightly repudiated on 11.11.2016 on the recommendation of the surveyor as the loss of engine was due to carelessness of the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant did not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint. The ld. counsel has further argued that K.P.S.Obroi surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,32,500/- and he relied upon the citations Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ring Road Honda and anr.1( 2019)CPJ 482, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manvinder Singh & Anr. 1(2019) CPJ 37 (NC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Kar 2014(1)CLT 613.
- To prove the case complainant Ishan Sahni has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the insurance policy of the OPs valid from 14.4.2016 to 13.4.2017.This was comprehensive policy for Rs.4,79,500/-,Ex.C2 registration certificate of the car in question, Ex.C3 licence,Ex.C4 is repudiation letter,Ex.C5 is invoice of Lally motors for the total loss of Rs.1,59,612/-.
- On the other hand Sh.I.S.Sidhu, Regional Manager of OPs has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OPB is affidavit of K.P.S.Obroi, surveyor,Ex.OP1 is repudiation letter,Ex.OP2 is the report of the surveyor,Ex.OP3 is claim intimation letter in which total estimate of Rs.1,32,500/- is shown,Ex.OP4 is claim form, Ex.OP5 affidavit and Ex.OP6 is insurance policy.
- The car bearing registration No.PB-11-BM-0223 make Honda Amaze was comprehensively insured with OP No.1 vide policy,Ex.C1 and as per the complainant on 8.7.2016 when he was travelling by said car near Panipat there was heavy rain and the traffic was moving very slow. The car was struck in the water due to which engine was seized .The surveyor was appointed and report of K.P.S.Obroi, Ex.OP2 is on the file and the surveyor has mentioned total loss as Rs.136964/-.In the report it is mentioned that damage to the engine is probable due to the negligence of the insured if he did not try again and again, the engine would not have been damaged and he has stated that the damaged caused to the engine due to the negligence of the insured so the claim was rejected by the insurance company. This is not the definite opinion of the surveyor as he has mentioned that the damage was probable due to negligence but he has not mentioned in clear term that engine was damaged due to the clear cut negligence of the insured. In the present case there was no negligence on the part of the complainant as he was travelling by the car in question and as per his version when he reached near Panipat there was heavy rain and his car struck and engine was damaged. There is no fault of the complainant and the heavy rain is never in the hand of any individual as it is natural phenomenon .Various judgments have been filed by the complainant. In one of the judgment New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. V.K.Bawa (supra) it is held by the Hon’ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh that owner of the car would not intentionally take car in deep water and the claim was allowed. Strangely enough the claim was refused on the flimsy ground vide letter Ex.C4.This letter is not speaking letter and the same has been written in haste just to deprive the complainant of his genuine claim. It is only written that the claim does not fall under the purview of the policy because as per surveyor recommendation engine loss is due to negligence of the complainant. So it is clear that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated on the recommendation of the surveyor. There is no expert report of any automobile engineer produced on the file by the OPs that engine was ceased due to the negligence of the complainant. Generally it seems that insurance companies are repudiating the claim on flimsy grounds and same is the case in this complaint.
- The report of the surveyor is on the file and as per the surveyor he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.136964/-. So taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the complainant, the complaint stands partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,964/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 11.11.2016.The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.25000/-as compensation and Rs.25000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:17.3.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
