Haryana

Kaithal

423/20

Rajesh Dhull - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Rajesh Kumar

05 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.423 of 2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.12.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:05.10.2023.

Rajesh Dhull age 37 years S/o Balbir Singh, resident of Village Bad Sikri Khurd, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, New India Assurance Bldg, 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Rajesh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant got insured his car make Swift Dzire bearing registration No.HR-83-4881, Model 2017 with the OPs vide policy No.35440231180300002664 which was valid w.e.f. 23.02.2019 to 22.02.2020 for the insured sum of Rs.4,20,000/-.  It is alleged that on 14.10.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident near Khushi Dhaba, Village Keorak.  It is further alleged that an FIR bearing No.168 under Section 279/304-A IPC was got registered in Police Station Sadar, Kaithal on 14.10.2019 regarding the above-said accident.  Intimation regarding the accident was given to the Ops.  The surveyor was appointed by the OPs and he told the complainant that his car was totally loss.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the required documents but the OPs denied the claim of complainant and vide letter dt. 30.07.2020, they closed the claim file of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and concealed the true and material facts from this Commission.  In fact, Shamsher Singh, Independent Investigator was deputed by the answering respondent and during his investigation, he found that the vehicle in question was purchased by one Deepak Kumar, who was driving the car at the time of alleged accident from Rajesh Kumar complainant.  This fact has been confirmed by Deepak through telephone talk with the investigator.  So, complainant Rajesh Kumar has no insurable interest in the vehicle and complainant Rajesh is not entitled for any claim.  So, the answering OPs have already repudiated the claim of complainant.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the signature of complainant does not match with the signature which put on consent letter, affidavit and proposal submitted by the complainant with the answering respondent.    On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured his car make Swift Dzire bearing registration No.HR-83-4881, Model 2017 with the OPs vide policy No.35440231180300002664 which was valid w.e.f. 23.02.2019 to 22.02.2020 for the insured sum of Rs.4,20,000/-.  It has been further argued that on 14.10.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident near Khushi Dhaba, Village Keorak and an FIR bearing No.168 under Section 279/304-A IPC was got registered in Police Station Sadar, Kaithal on 14.10.2019 regarding the above-said accident.  Intimation regarding the accident was given to the Ops.  It has been further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the required documents but the OPs vide letter dt. 30.07.2020 closed the claim file of complainant.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case titled as Simranjeet Singh Vs. UII, decided by this Commission on 07.07.2017bearing complaint case No.50/11/Remanded Case and case titled as Smt. Maya Devi and others Vs. Devi Singh and another decided by the Court of Sh. Naresh Katyal, the then M.A.C.T. bearing CNR No.HRKH01-008519-2019

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs argued that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident, Shamsher Singh, Independent Investigator was deputed by the OPs and during his investigation, he found that the vehicle in question was purchased by one Deepak Kumar, who was driving the car at the time of alleged accident from Rajesh Kumar complainant.  This fact has been confirmed by Deepak through telephone talk with the investigator.  It has been further argued that the complainant Rajesh Kumar has no insurable interest in the vehicle and complainant Rajesh is not entitled for any claim.  Ld. counsel for the OPs has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Kaustubh Gajanan Dixit Vs. OIC 2018(2) CLT 496 decided by Hon’ble National Commission; Deepak Kumar Vs. NIA 2018(3) CLT 8 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII 2018(1) CLT 508 decided by Hon’ble National Commission.   

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The OPs have closed the claim file of complainant vide letter dt. 30.07.2020 as per Annexure-C7 on the ground that as per investigation report of Mr. Shamsher Singh, Investigator, the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to Mr. Deepak S/o Sh. Kitab Singh.  In rebuttal, the complainant has drawn our attention towards the copy of RC as per Annexure-C8, wherein the owner name is mentioned as Rajesh Dhull and as per Policy-Cum-Certificate of Insurance (Annexure-C5), the insured name is mentioned as Rajesh Dhull.  In the FIR bearing No.168 dt. 14.10.2019 as per Anneuxre-C1, Deepak Kumar has made the statement to the effect that he was driving the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident.  The Ops have failed to produce any document on the file from which it could be proved that Deepak Kumar was the owner of vehicle in question rather he was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident.  In the present case, the surveyor has assessed the net loss amounting to Rs.3,54,000/- as per report which is  Annexure-R1 on the file. 

10.            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.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. 

11.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.3,54,000/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within 45 days from today.  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.3,54,000/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.   

12.            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.:05.10.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.