DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  493

                                                Instituted on:    17.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       18.01.2017

Narinderpal Singh @ Honey son of Gurmeet Singh, resident of Village Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, 7, Chhotti  Baradari, The Mall, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

2.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, College Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.     

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For Opp. parties       :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Narinderpal Singh @ Honey complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant  availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Chevrolet Cruze VCDI car bearing registration number PB-13-AM-9606 from the OPs by paying the requisite premium of Rs.40,624/- for the period from 31.12.2014 to 30.12.2015 under the cashless policy. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 16.06.2015 with a motorcycle bearing registration number PB-13-AN-5868 and driver of the motorcycle died.  It is further averred that after the accident the complainant gave the intimation to the OP number 2 on 17.6.2015 as well as to the police, who recorded FIR number 75 dated 16.6.2015 regarding the accident in question.   It is further averred that thereafter the OPs lodged the claim and appointed  surveyor to assess the loss and on the instructions of the surveyor, the car was brought to M/s.Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Patiala, where they prepared the estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.4,98,715.91. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the Ops and requested to allow for repairs of the vehicle, but all in vain.  The complainant could not get the car repaired at his own as he was not having any such huge amount to spent on the repairs.  As such, since the car in question was lying with M/s. Padam Motors, Patiala, but the OPs did not settle the claim, as such the complainant took the delivery of the car from the repairer on 18.8.2015 by paying the requisite amount of Rs.86,327/.  The complainant has alleged that he has been harassed in the hands of the OPs by not settling the claim by them, as the Op were bound to decide it within three months time. It is also averred that one Harjit Kaur had also filed a claim petition in the court of Shri A.S.Virk, Presiding officer, MACT Court Sangrur, who allowed the claim petition against the OPs and directed to pay Rs.20,50,000/- to the claimant.   It is further averred that the vehicle of the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.4,98,715.91 in the accident, but the OPs failed to settle the claim despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.4,98,716/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the OPs have been dragged into unnecessary litigation, that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, that the complainant has no consumer dispute.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops. It is stated that after receipt of the intimation dated 29.6.2015, the OPs appointed Shri Chander Shekhar, Surveyor, who submitted his report dated 9.7.2015 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The surveyor observed that the driver of the car in question was driving the car under the influence/intoxicants and demanded various documents from the complainant, but when the complainant did not submit the documents, the surveyor submitted his final report dated 21.9.2015 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/-. But, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the car was under the influence of liquor/intoxicants at the time of accident.  As such, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of order dated 31.3.2016, Ex.C-3 copy of retail invoice dated 14.8.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C-5 copy of ledger, Ex.C-6 copy of estimate dated 25.6.2015, Ex.C-7 copy of detail estimate, Ex.C-8 copy of policy cover note, Ex.C-9 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-11 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14  affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1  copy of policy, Ex.OPs/2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OPs/3 copy of intimation, Ex.OPs/4 copy of status report, Ex.OPs/5 copy of letter, Ex.Ops/6 copy of courier receipt, Ex.OPs/7 copy of courier receipt, Ex.Ops/8 copy of survey report dated 21.9.2015, Ex.Ops/9 copy of no claim letter dated 17.12.2015, Ex.Ops/10 copy of condition letter, Exs.OPs/11 affidavit and Ex.Ops/12 affidavit of Mewa Singh and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question for Rs.13,17,000/- with the OPs by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-8.

6.                It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 16.06.2015, intimation of which was given to the OPs, as such after receipt of the intimation, the OPs immediately appointed surveyor Shri Chander Shekhar, who submitted his report Ex.OPs/8, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/-. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of the complainant was under the influence of liquor/intoxicants.  As such, the complainant to avoid further loss to the vehicle took the delivery in accidental condition from the repairer by paying the amount of Rs.86,327/- on 18.8.2015, as he was unable to pay the whole charges to get the vehicle repaired.     

7.             Now, it is the case of the complainant that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver/complainant at the time of accident on 16.6.2015 was under the influence of liquor/intoxicant.  As such, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the Ops have proved on record that the driver/complainant at the time of accident was under the influence of liquor/intoxicants and that whether the claim is payable or not to the complainant.

8.             We have perused the whole case file thoroughly and failed to find out any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to establish that at the time of accident, the complainant/driver was under the influence of liquor/intoxicant except a document, which is a copy of survey report, Ex.OPs/8, wherein in clause 10.1 it has been mentioned that “having gone through the contents of the police FIR, it was found to have been clearly stated that the insured cum the driving person was in an inebriated condition (intoxicated). Therefore, the repairer being cash less dealer was conveyed not to provide cash less service.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the Ops that the claim has rightly been repudiated on the basis of the survey report, more so when the court of MACT Sangrur vide its order dated 31.3.2016 in Harjit Kur versus Narinderpal Singh @ Honey, has clearly held in para 10 of the order “…that the evidence led before the Tribunal has to be appreciated and this evidence does not prove that respondent Narinderpal Singh was under the influence of intoxicants. There is no medical evidence on record to prove this fact.  He has relied upon the law settled in Jiju Kuruvila and others versus Kunjujamma Mohan and others 2013(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 364 and Khushiwnder Singh and another versus Ram Chnder and another 2015(3) PLR 839.  In Jiju Kuruvila’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that driving a vehicle in intoxicating condition alone is not sufficient to conclude that driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently..….”  We may further mention that the OPs have not produced any cogent evidence to show that the driver of the vehicle was actually under the influence of liquor etc.   Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs have miserably failed to establish on record that the complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident by consuming intoxication/liquor. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

9.             The complainant has produced on record the copy of repair estimate dated 25.6.2015 Ex.C-6 issued by Padam Cars Pvt. Limited to the tune of Rs.4,98,716/-, as such the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the Ops be directed to pay him the same amount along with interest etc.  But, we are unable to go with such a contention, as the OPs have produced on record the copy of final survey report dated 21.09.2015 issued by Shri Chander Shekhar, surveyor and loss assessor, Ex.OPs/8, wherein  he has assessed the net loss payable to the complainant as Rs.4,30,000/-. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the claim of the complainant is settled at Rs.4,30,000/- by the OPs.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the OPs  did not settle the claim even after filing of the present complaint.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of survey report i.e. 21.09.2015 till realisation. We further order OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 18, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member