Haryana

Karnal

CC/291/2022

M/s Mahadev Iron & Bottle Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Kumar Popli

19 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 291 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.26.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:19.03.2024

 

M/s Mahadev Iron and Bottle Store, New Bahadur Chand Colony, Hansi Road, Karna (HR), through its proprietor Mr. Chanderdeep Arora.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at Old G.T. Road, opposite Old Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager.

       

                                                                 …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Sh. Ashwani Popli, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of a truck bearing registration no.HR-45-D-7883, which is hypothecated with the ICICI Bank Ltd. Karnal. The said truck was being used by complainant for his livelihood. The complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP under “Zero Debt Policy” by paying premium amount of Rs.23,595/- in the company of the OP, vide insurance policy no.12220031210350035270, valid from 30.06.2021 to 29.06.2022. On 31.01.2022, the abovesaid truck met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant brought the truck at the workshop of the Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal on the very next day. The complainant had also intimated about the said accident to the office of OP and lodged the claim, because he had purchased ‘Nil Dep Cover A (Depreciation Nil) policy from the OP. The complainant has also completed all other necessary formalities and had given requisite documents to the OP and OP assured the complainant that the amount of insurance claim would be disbursed in favour of the complainant and would be directly paid to the authorized service centre from where the complainant would get repaired his vehicle. The complainant has spent Rs.1,82,915/- on the repair of the vehicle but the insurance company has disbursed only amount of Rs.1,56,000/-. The authorized person of Metro Motors had demanded Rs.26,915/- from the complainant for delivering back his vehicle to the complainant, then under compelling circumstances the complainant has paid Rs.26,915/- to Metro Motors and get back his vehicle. Complainant had approached in the office of OP to reimburse claim amount of Rs.26,915/- in favour of the complainant, then the OP started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to disburse the remaining amount. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of complainant has already been settled and he has accepted the amount as full and final settlement of claim without any protest. After getting intimation of damage of vehicle in question, the OP deputed IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely Er. A.P. Chawla, who conducted the survey and submitted his report. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,56,000/-. The claim of complainant has been settled and a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- has been paid by the OP in full and final settlement of claim. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question also registered as commercial vehicle. Same was not used for livelihood and it has also been acknowledged in the complaint that the vehicle was driven by driver Sanjeev Kumar, the fact mentioned above clears that the vehicle was use for commercial purpose nor for livelihood. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of National Permit Ex.C3, copy of online detail Ex.C4, copy of payment receipt Ex.C5, copy of driving licence Ex.C6, copy of GST detail of firm Mahadev Iron Ex.C7, copy of aadhar card Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of R.K. Mittal, Manager Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of A.P.Chawla, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.RW2/A, copy of survey report Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his truck with the OP under “Zero Debt Policy”. On  31.01.2022, the said truck met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant brought the said truck at the workshop of the Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal on the very next day of accident for repair. The intimation regarding the said accident was also sent to OP. Complainant also lodged the claim and submitted all the relevant documents with the OP. The complainant has spent Rs.1,82,915/- on the repair of the vehicle but the insurance company has disbursed only amount of Rs.1,56,000/-. Complainant approached the OP several times and requested to reimburse the remaining claim amount of Rs.26,915/- but OP did not pay the same and refused to disburse the remaining amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the claim of complainant has already been settled and a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- has been paid by the OP in full and final settlement of claim and complainant accepted the said amount without any protest. Complainant has removed the vehicle from the spot without any intimation to the OP and deprived the right of OP to ascertain the actual facts. He further argued that complainant has failed to lodge the DDR/FIR with regard to the said accident. Complainant has   violated the terms and conditions of the policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The vehicle in question met with an accident on 31.01.2022 and complainant brought his vehicle at the workshop of the Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. Complainant removed the vehicle in question from the spot without spot inspection done by the surveyor of the OP and thus complainant has deprived the right of the OP to ascertain the actual facts at the spot. Moreover, complainant has failed to lodge the DDR/FIR with regard to the said accident and thus has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

11.           Complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs.26915/- as remaining payment to the Metro Motors. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but he has miserable failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has relied upon the receipt Ex.C5. Said receipt is duplicate one and photocopy. In the said receipt number of the vehicle has not been mentioned. Hence, it is not proved whether said receipt belongs to the vehicle in question. Furthermore, complainant has failed to implead Metro Motors as a party to prove the said receipt.  OP has already paid Rs.1,56,000/- to the Metro Motors, Karnal and complainant has accepted the said amount as full and final settlement and in this regard he  sent a consent letter to the OP.

12.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.03.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.       

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                   Member