Haryana

Panchkula

CC/278/2020

KAMAL PARKASH SAHOTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER SHARMA & TARSEM SHARMA.

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	278 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	11.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	08.03.2022

 

Kamal Parkash Sahota son of Shri Daya Chand Sahota, resident of House No.1511, Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran Chandigarh, UT.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager   SCO No.58, Sector-26-C, Chandigarh.

2.     The New India Assurance Company Ltd. SCO No.37-38, Sector-17-A, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.                                                                                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Ravinder Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the OPs No.1 & 2 alongwith Sh.Jitender Singh, A.O.  

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the Bajaj Pulsar 180 Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CH-01-BH-0722. The complainant is working as Cameraman with India TV. The said motor cycle of the complainant was insured with the OPs vide Policy no.35330031170100002364 dated 08.08.2017 and was valid for the period from 08.08.2017 to 07.08.2018. On 25.08.2017, the complainant has gone to Sector-5, Panchkula near HAFED Department for coverage of the incident created by the supporters/followers of Baba Ram Rahim Dera Sacha Sauda and the complainant had parked his motor cycle with the motor cycles of the other reporter but on that day, the following vehicles have been damaged/burnt by the supporters/followers of Baba Ram Rahim Dera Sacha Sauda due to riots, stone/brick pelting, arson and hooliganism in the area of Sector-5, Panchkula. Due to the above said illegal act of the followers, the motor cycle of the complainant was also damaged/burnt. The complainant had moved an application to the SHO Police Station, Sector-5 Panchkula to this effect and on this an FIR No.0370 dated 29.08.2017 was registered. After the said incident, the complainant immediately rushed to the OP No.1 and moved an application dated 29.08.2017 regarding the said burnt motor cycle and for passing the claim of the same and he has also deposited the entire documents like RC, Pollution, insurance and photographs of the damaged motor cycle with the OPs alongwith the estimate of Rs.1,15,190/- prepared by Partap Auto(India) Pvt. Ltd. and the same was received by the office of the OP No.1. Thereafter, the OP No.1 has appointed the Surveyor of the company and the surveyor submitted his report regarding the loss caused to the motor cycle of the complainant. It is also submitted that in the month of March, 2018, the OPs directed the complainant to furnish an affidavit to the effect that he has not received any type of claim from the Govt. or insurance company or any other agency. The complainant furnished an affidavit to the said effect vide dated 26.03.2018 and the OPs assured the complainant to release the compensation amount but the OPs have failed to release the compensation amount.  Thereafter the complainant visited the office of the OPs and requested to release the claim and then again the OPs directed him to submit an affidavit again to the effect. He again submitted an affidavit dated 10.09.2018 with the OPs and they assured him to release the compensation amount as early as possible but the OPs have failed to release the compensation amount. Thereafter on 09.03.2020, the complainant filed an appeal before the Head office of the OPs under RTI Act, 2005 and the said appeal was disposed off  on 22.06.2020 and the OPs were requested to give the surveyor report and to take action on the claim of the complainant but  till dated the OPs have failed to release the compensation amount.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; not come with clean hands; concealed the material facts.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant informed the OPs on 29.08.2017 regarding loss to the Motor-cycle bearing no.CH-01-BH-0722 on 28.08.2017. On the receipt of the information of loss to the said vehicle, the OPs deputed Sh.Narinder Mohan Jaiswal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to do the survey and collect all the relevant documents for the verification and assessment of the loss/damage caused to the vehicle and also to assess the claim under the terms and conditions of the Policy of Insurance. During inspection, it was found that the Motor cycle was insured with the OPs under two wheeler Package Policy for a sum of Rs. 61,000/- for the period from 08.08.2017 to 07.08.2018. The OPs wrote many letters to the complainant to inform whether he received any compensation from the Administration as the administration had set up commission for compensation to the persons whose property was damaged in the riots which occurred on 25.08.2017. The surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.57.900/- vide survey report dated 06.07.2018. The complainant did not inform the OPs whether he lodged claim for the loss to the motor-cycle in riots and further whether he received any claim from the Administration regarding the loss to the said vehicle in the riots. As such, the claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” on 10.10.2017. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-17 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R1/1 to R1/6 and closed the evidence.

 4.            We have heard learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs and gone through the entire record available on record, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the insured vehicle i.e.Bajaj Pulsar 180 Motor Cycle bearing registration no.CH-01-BH-0722 got damaged on 25.08.2017 as it was set on fire following the incident, which occurred on 25.08.2017 after the arrest and conviction of Baba Ram Rahi, Dera Sacha Sauda. The said loss to the insured vehicle occurred during the validity period of the insurance policy no.35330031170100002364 dated 08.08.2017. The information to the police vide application Annexure C-1 and registration of FIR No.370 dated 29.08.2017 P.S.Sector-5, Panchkula (Annexure C-2)  thereon by the police and further lodging of the claim with the OP by the complainant vide application dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure C-3) is not disputed. Even the report of surveyor dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure R-1/6) wherein a net sum of Rs.57,900/- has been shown as payable to the complainant is also not disputed. Now, the OP by filing an application 18.12.2021 has expressed its willingness to release the payment of Rs.57,900/-in favour of the complainant subject to completion of certain formalities as mentioned in the para no.4 of the application. The complainant has filed the reply to the said application mentioning that his claim was wrongly closed by the OP as “no claim”.

6.             It is correct that the OP after the lodging of the claim by the complainant pertaining to the loss to the insured vehicle has asked the complainant vide letter dated 08.09.2017 & 16.09.2017 to submit the report as to whether he had received any payment of compensation from the District Administration and having no response from the complainant, the claim was closed on 10.10.2017(AnnexureR-1/5). However, an affidavit was submitted by the complainant on 26.03.2018 mentioning that he had received no claim from the Government or Insurance Company or any other Agency. The OP failed to take any action on the aforesaid affidavit submitted by the complainant on 26.03.2018. The complainant again submitted an affidavit on 10.09.2018 confirming that he had not received any claim in respect of the vehicle in question either from the Government or any Insurance Company. The OP did not take any action on the second Affidavit dated 10.09.2018 also thereby compelling the complainant to approach this Commission by way of filing the present complaint.  The aforementioned facts leave no scope for any doubt with regard to the lapse and deficiency on the part of OPs while delivering the services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to the relief.

7.             Now, coming to the relief clause, we find that the surveyor has given his report for the payment of Rs.57,900/- after deducting of Rs.100/- and Rs.3,000/- on account of less policy clause and less salvage value of vehicle. As mentioned above, the report of the surveyor dated 08.07.2018(Annexure R-1/6) is not in dispute; therefore, the complainant is entitled to the disbursement of Rs.57,900/- after submission of certain documents.

8.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OPs are directed to release the payment of Rs. 57,900/- in favour  of the complainant alongwith 9 % interest per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to the submission of following documents by the complainant to the Ops:-

1. Indemnity Bond mentioning that insured/complainant will be legally liable to refund the amount of compensation, if any, receives in future from Government/District Administration.
2. Cancelling of Registration Certificate i.e.Form No.29 & 30 of M.V.Act duly signed by the owner.
3. Form No.35 duly signed from the financier if the vehicle was financed.
4. NEFT particulars of the insured/complainant for direct transfer of claim amount to the account of insured/ complainant.

2. The Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment
3. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation charges.

 

9.             The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal       

           Member                        Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini

                                                Member