Punjab

Sangrur

CC/262/2018

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.S.S.Ratol

20 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                       Complaint No. 262

Instituted on:  05.06.2018

                                                                        Decided on:    20.05.2019

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Tarlok Singh, R/O Ward No.2, Patiala Road, Near Gurudwara Kar Sewa, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, College Road, Sangrur.

             ….Opposite party

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :      Shri Harpreet Singla, Advocate.      

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

 

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Gurpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AL-4709 for the period from 1.5.2017 to 30.4.2018 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.36,973/- and the said truck was under hypothecation with M/s. Daljeet Secura Finance Co. (Regd) Sangrur and the complainant has purchased the truck in order to earn his livelihood. Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle of the complainant in question damaged in an accident near village Nooran Khera, Distt. Sonepat and damaged badly.  The complainant was bodily injured and was taken to Civil Hospital, Bohana and thereafter was taken to Gulzar Bone and Joint Hospital Malerkotla. The complainant was referred to Arora Neuro Centre Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana and then to Amar Hospital Patiala and the complainant remained on bed for number of days.  Further case of the complainant is that the information of accident was given to the OP and the OP appointed surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal to assess the loss.  The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,82,360/-. However, the FIR was wrongly written against the complainant at the instance of one Jai Bhagwan of Hissar. Further case of the complainant is that the OP wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no valid and effective permit for state of Haryana and it is stated that there is no major breach of terms and conditions, so the claim is said to has been wrongly repudiated. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,82,360/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from 23.1.2018 till realization and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it is admitted that the truck in question is insured with the Ops and it is further admitted that the truck is hypothecated with M/s. Daljeet Secura Finance Company (Regd.). It is also admitted that truck in question met with an accident and it is admitted that intimation of accident of the truck was received. After receipt of intimation of accident, the OP appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.80,250/- after deducting depreciation.  It is stated further that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the truck at the time of accident was not having a valid permit of Haryana.  As such, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. OP has not produced written arguments.

 

5.             It is admitted fact between the parties that the truck in question was insured with the OP from 01.05.2017 to 30.04.2018 and on 22.01.2018 met with an accident and the intimation of the accident was received by the OP and the OP appointed the surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor assessed the  loss of  Rs.80,250/- less of salvage. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 30.05.2018 by the OP on the ground that at the time of the accident truck was not having a valid permit of Haryana. We have gone through the documents submitted by the Ops and as per Ex.Op-8, the assessment made by the surveyor has been found in order and has been carried out as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the truck being more than 10 years old. Further we have observed that the ground on which the repudiation was made by the OP is not the breach of fundamental terms and conditions of the policy. As such the repudiation made by the op is not justified.

 

6.             Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with the direction to the OP to pay the complainant an amount of loss assessed by the surveyor on the non-standard basis i.e. 75% of Rs.80,250/- which  comes out to be Rs.60,103/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complainant i.e. 07.06.2018 till  realization. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment including litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        May 20, 2019.                                           

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                             Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member