Haryana

Kaithal

07/19

Ram Niwas - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Joginder Dhull

21 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

Complaint Case No.99/2015/2019/Remanded Case.

                                        Date of Instt. 21.05.2015/7.1.2019.

                                        Date of decision:21.12.2022.

Ram Niwas son of Chattar Singh, resident of House No.407, Ramsaya Patti Bad Sikri Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                Complainant

                                        Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Kaithal above Vijay Bank Ist Floor Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present :    Sh. Gurdev Singh, Advocate for complainant.

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

 

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

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

                   Earlier the above-said complaint was disposed of by this commission vide order dt. 30.05.2016 with the direction that the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or court of competent jurisdiction because complicated question being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court.  But the order of this commission has been set-aside by the Hon’ble State Commission and the case has been remitted back to District Commission.  The Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dt. 03.08.2017 remanded this case to this commission with the directions to decide the case on merits. 

2.               The brief facts of present complaint are that the complainant got insured his Maruti Car No. HR-08Q/6004 with the respondent vide policy number 31260031130300905190 dated 09.08.2013 valid upto 08.08.2014 and the insured amount was Rs.6,32,364/-.  On 03.02.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant alongwith Deepak Kumar son of Satpal were going towards Pundri from Asand in the above said car driven by above named Deepak Kumar. When they reached at about 4/5 acres from village Khanda Kheri, a cow came in front of the car and the driver tried to save the cow and the said vehicle hit with a standing tree and the car was completely damaged in this accident. A D.D.R.no.13 dated 04.02.2014 was recorded in police station Asand, Distt. Karnal. The respondent was intimated on telephone regarding the accident. The surveyor was appointed, who visited next day at the spot. The complainant submitted the documents to the surveyor as well as to the respondent, but the car could not be repaired as the same was completely damaged. The respondent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 03.04.2015.  This way the respondent is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint was filed. It is also alleged in the complaint that the legal heir of above said Deepak Kumar has filed an application for compensation of damages before the commissioner under the employee’s compensation Act, Kaithal.

3.             Upon notice, the respondent appeared before this commission and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to the fact that a complicated question of law and facts is involved; in view of his act and conduct, the complainant be stopped from filing the present complaint; the complaint is filed with malafide intention and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this commission.  It is contended that as per record of P.G.I.Chandigarh Mr. Deepak received injuries on 03.02.2014 in a four wheeler tipper at Kaithal and not with the swift dezire car bearing registration No.HR-08Q/6004 as alleged. It is further contended that the insured had hidden the actual facts and planted a wrong driver to get the insurance cover and violated the terms and conditions of the policy as enshrined under General exception 3(b) of the policy. It is further contended that M/s. Grover Associates were appointed for investigation, who submitted report dated 23.02.2015 reporting therein that neither insured nor family member of the deceased rendered any co-operation. As per said investigator, a collusion was found between the insured and the family members of the deceased and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. On merits, the contents of complaint were denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

4.             In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C8 and closed the evidence on 10.05.2016. On the other hand, the respondent tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.R.K.Indora and Ex.RW2/A of Sh. K.L.Grover and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7.

                After remand of the case, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in additional evidence documents Annexure-C9 to Annexure-C34 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent in rebuttal evidence summoned the witness from PGIMR, Chandigarh. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             Sh. Gurdev Singh, Adv. for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured his Maruti Car bearing registration No.HR08Q-6004 with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. vide cover note/policy No.31260031130300905190 dt. 09.08.2013 valid upto 08.08.2014 for the insured amount of Rs.6,32,364/- and the complainant had paid premium amount to the respondent.  He has further argued that on 03.02.2014 the complainant alongwith Deepak Kumar son of Sat Pal resident of Arjun Nagar Kaithal at about 6.00 p.m. were going towards Pundri from Assandh in the above-said vehicle which was being driven by Deepak Kumar, when they reached at about 4/5 acres away from the Village Khanda Kheri in the mean time a cow came in front of above-said car and driver tried to save the cow and the said vehicle hit with the standing tree and the vehicle was completely damaged in the accident and to this effect a DDR No.13 dt. 04.02.2014 (Ex.C3) was got entered in P.S.Asandh Distt. Kaithal.  Complainant had duly intimated to the office of insurance company regarding the above-said accident through telephonic message and on this the company appointed the surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle of the complainant and the surveyor visited the spot on the next day and the complainant submitted the documents to the surveyor and further the complainant also submitted the required documents in the office of the company, but the complainant could not repair the same because the same had been completely damaged.  It has been further argued that on 25.11.2014 the respondent sent a letter to the complainant and the contents of which are totally false and baseless and to this effect the complainant sent a reply of the same.  It has been further argued that the complainant requested many times to make the payment of the above-said amount, but the official of the company flatly refused to make the payment of the above-said amount to the complainant on the flimsy ground vide repudiation letter dt. 03.04.2015.  It has been further argued that the legal heirs of Deepak Kumar son of Sat Pal has filed an application for payment of compensation of damage before the Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, Kaithal in respect of the above-said accident and the legal heirs of the deceased Deepak Kumar has joined as respondent No.1 in that application.  It has been further argued that the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment due to the above-said illegal act and conduct on the part of the respondent and there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  The complainant has relied upon in his evidence and the complainant placed his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, Ex.C1-DL, Ex.C2-RC of the vehicle, Ex.C3-DDR dt. 04.07.2014, Ex.C4-insurance policy, Ex.C5-receipt of bank, Ex.C6-receipt dt. 06.06.2014, Ex.C7-receipt dt. 26.04.2014, Ex.C8 receipt dt. 04.02.2014, Annexure-C9 to Annexure-C20-bills, Annexure-C26 to C-34-bills which have been perused by us.  It has been further argued that the respondent has also stated in their surveyor report Ex.R-2 that the accident took place at Assandh and due to serious condition, he was referred to G.H.Karnal.      

7.             Sh. C.S.Gupta, Adv. for the respondent-insurance company has stated that in the present case, FIR is not recorded by the police.  Instead of police has recorded the DDR but for this, complainant cannot be punished because police recorded a DDR and FIR is not recorded by the police.  For this reliance is placed in a case of loss of jewellery titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Anil Sehgal, 2005(2) CPC 616 decided by Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh.  In this case, under Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Under Sections 14 and 15-in the matter of a claim for loss of jewellery, sum of Rs.49,581/- was directed to be paid as insurance claim by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for loss of insured jewellery.  The plea of appellant company that in the absence of FIR qua theft of jewellery no claim was permissible but the District Forum did not accept the said plea.  It was held that since the police had recorded the DDR instead of FIR, therefore, complainant cannot be punished for writing a DDR by the police and not a FIR by the police and the impugned order was upheld by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.     

8.              Sh. C.S.Gupta, Adv. for the respondent-insurance company has further argued that as per record of PGI Chandigarh Mr. Deepak received injuries i.e. E-2, D-3 with Paraplegia with B D involvement on 03.02.2014 at P.M. at Kaithal while in Four Wheeler Tipper and not with the Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No.HR08Q-6004.  It has been further argued that the complainant with his malafide motive and while misusing the cover of insurance wrongly implicated the Swift Dezire Car without its involvement just to give benefit to the family of deceased to claim compensation from WC court illegally as such the insured has hidden the actual facts and planted a wrong driver just to give undue benefit while misuing the insurance cover and violated the terms and condition of policy as enshrined under General exception 3 (b) of the policy.  It has been further argued that the respondent further asked the investigator M/s. Grover Associates to further investigate the case after establishing the contacts with the family members of the deceased and the said investigator has submitted his report dt. 23.02.2015 vide which it has been reported that neither the insured nor the family members of deceased rendered any cooperation and as per said investigator, the collusion between the insured and the family members of deceased found established as argued by Sh. C.S.Gupta, Adv.  It has been further argued that in the present case, the DDR was recorded by the police just after the accident while six months later, one statement was recorded in which the deponent had stated that accident took place by Four Wheeler Tipper  but Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No.HR08Q-6004 is also a four wheeler having four wheels but the word tipper is added through prompting by the insurance company, as objected by the counsel for the complainant.  The objection raised by the complainant seems to be valid as the counsel for complainant has stated that insurance company-respondent wants to get rid of its financial responsibility to pay compensation to the complainant.  He further stated that the insurance company never wants to give due compensation to the aggrieved complainant although insurance company receives sum for the payment of premium to the company.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of our aforesaid discussion, there is merit in the case of complainant.  The respondent is hereby directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.6,32,364/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.05.2015 till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost, which is assessed as Rs.11,000/-.         

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent 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.:21.12.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.