Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

Consumer Complaint No. 153

Instituted on:  28.03.2019

Decided on:  20.11.2024

Dalbir son of Sh. Om Parkash R/o Village Bass Badshahpur Tehsil Hansi District Hissar.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Rohtak, Through its Divisional Manager.

……Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. V.K. Chugh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. A.S. Malik, Advocate for the Opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that he is a registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration no. HR-56-9872 insured with opposite party vide policy no. 353800311601000000484. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.01.2017 and was badly damaged. He informed the officials of the opposite party and a surveyor was appointed by the opposite party insurance company, who surveyed the vehicle and claim no. 31/16/019/795 was generated. The complainant completed all the required formalities and requested the opposite party to  pay the claim amount but all in vain. On 06.02.2018, the opposite party repudiated the claim of complainant alleging therein that there was misrepresentation in claim form as the name of insured was written as Devender Singh, there was a delayed intimation of 7 days and the said vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. The complainant never used the insured vehicle for commercial purposes. After that a legal notice dated 05.02.2019 was got served but of no use and at last the opposite party finally refused to pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-on account of loss suffered by himalongwith interest, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony &harassment as well as Rs.11,000/-  for litigation expenses to the complainant beside any other relief, which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the intimation regarding the damage of vehicle no. HR-56-9872 with the opposite party was given by Mr. Devender on 31.01.2017 i.e. after a delay of 7 days, which deprived the insurance company to assess the actual loss, thereby violation of condition No. 1 and other terms and conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the claim is not payable to the complainant. Further, the insured vehicle again met with an accident on 30.03.2017 for which FIR no.122 dated 31.03.2017 was got lodged on the statement of Manish. According to him, the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Cruiser Jeep no. HR-56-9872 but during the investigation and in view of the statements of Eye witness/occupants of said jeep recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, it reflected that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purposes at the time of loss whereas the said vehicle was registered and insured as a private vehicle. As per claim form and intimation letter dated 31.01.2017 submitted to the opposite party, name of insured was written as Devender Singh whereas Dalbir Singh was insured as per record. So, Dalbir Singh was neither owner nor in possession of insured vehicle at the time of accident. Since the complainant had no insurable interest, the claim is not payable to him. In reply on merits of the case, the opposite party contended that opposite party has deputed Sh. Jugal Kishore Duneja, Surveyor to assess the losses, who assessed the net loss amounting to Rs. 38,791/- whereas the competent authority has sanctioned Rs.37,700/- subject to the terms and condition of the policy. It is admitted by the opposite party that a legal notice dated 05.02.2019 was received and the opposite party replied the same on 28.02.2019. All other allegations of complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                 Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-8 in his evidence and closed the same on 21.07.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-8 and closed the same on dated 05.02.2024.

4.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present complaint, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 06.02.2018 and same has been placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R1 on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question, there is delay of 7 days in intimating about the accident and the vehicle again met with an accident on 30.03.2017 and on that day the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. To prove the fact the respondent insurance company has placed on record claim form Ex.R3 and submitted that in the column of insured particulars, the name of insured is mentioned as “Devender s/o Daya Singh, resident of village Nandal, Rohtak, mobile number 9991019925”. The insurance company also submitted that another accident of the vehicle took place  on 30.03.2017 and on that day the  vehicle was used for commercial purpose. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.  Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are the estimate  of Rs.46800/-, Ex.C4 is MACT order of the Court of Sh. SantParkash, MACT, dated 06.03.2018, Ex.C5 is MACT Judgment, Ex.C6 legal notice, Ex.C7 photocopy of postal receipt and Ex.C8 is ‘No Claim letter’.

6.                As per our opinion, the insurance company is believing Ex.R3 i.e. motor claim form, as on the overleaf, the signature of Dalbir are marked. Meaning thereby, this claim form has been submitted by Dalbir but inadvertently the name, fathers name and residential address have been wrongly mentioned. In fact, the insurance company failed to consider the Ex.R2 i.e. loss/damage intimation letter. In this document the insured particulars have been correctly mentioned and the name of insured is mentioned as Dalbir Singh and the name of driver is Devender. So perusal of this document itself shows that particulars of insured have been correctly mentioned in the intimation letter Ex.R2. Regarding the other plea that vehicle has been used by the complainant as commercial purpose on dated 30.03.2017, it is observed that at the time of deciding the claim dated 25.01.2017, the incident of 31.03.2017 cannot be considered, which occurred subsequently.  Through this complaint we are deciding the claim dated 25.01.2017. The grounds of claim dated 30.03.2017 cannot be considered in the claim dated 25.01.2017 and the same will be decided later on,if   the complainant will file the claim dated 30.03.2017.  As such,opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on false grounds. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Through this complaint, the complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.3 lac, whereas as per documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3, he has placed on record the estimate amounting to Rs.46800/-.  On the other hand, insurance company has placed on record survey report Ex.R5, as per which the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.38791/- Hence the complainant is entitled for the amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.38791/-.

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.38791/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand seven hundred and ninety one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.03.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

7.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

20.11.2024

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          .......................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member