Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/83/2023

SAHIJINDER KAUR GREWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

KHUSHDEEP MANN

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/83/2023
Date of Institution	:	17.2.2023
Date of Decision	:	02/08/2024

 

Sahijinder Kaur Grewal, w/o Birinder Pal Singh Grewal, aged 51 years resident of House no. 685, PSB Officers society, Sector-49-A, Chandigarh. 160047.

… Complainant

VERSUS

 

1.New India Assurance Ltd, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative/Administrative Officer:

 

REGIONAL OFFICE SCO 36-37, forth floor, Sector 17-A, 160017 BRANCH OFFICE ADDRESS

SCO-2939-40, First floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, 160022

2. Globe Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Plot no-337, Industrial Area, phase-9, Mohali.

 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Khushdeep Mann, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Shairon Tyagi, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant is registered owner of  Toyota Etios Car bearing number CH-01-AP-7846 (hereinafter referred to be as subject car).  The copy of RC is annexed as Exhibit C-1(b).  The subject vehicle was got insured from OP No.1 vide policy Exhibit C-1(a) valid w.e.f. 18.9.2020 to 17.9.2021 (hereinafter referred to be subject policy). On the morning of 2.9.2021 when the subject car was being driven by brother of the complainant namely Jeetinder Singh traveling alongwith his wife Sukhvirkaur the subject car met with an accident near Harigarh due to sudden appearance of a cow on the road and when Jeetinder Singh turned the car to save the cow the subject had fallen down in the fields and turned turtle as a result of which the subject car was totally damaged and both the occupants of the car suffered minor inquiries.  The matter was reported to the police and accordingly DDR dated 2.9.2021 Exhibit P-2  was recorded.  At the time of accident the driver Jeetinder Singh was possessing valid driving license Exhibit P-3.  Thereafter the subject car was towed and brought to Chandigarh in the workshop of OP No.2 and an amount of Rs.9500/- was accordingly paid    to OP No.2 towards the towing charges. Thereafter the complainant asked OP No.2 to repair the subject car as the subject car was insured with OP No.1. Thereafter the representative of OP No.2 provided an insurance claim intimation letter Exhibit P-4(a). The claim form was filled by the representative of OP No.1 and the same is annexed as Exhibit P-4(b).  Thereafter the complainant called at the office of OP No.2 and told by the representative of OP No.1 to get an amended daily diary report (DDR) as the same was given by the driver Jeetinder singh  at the time of accident.  Accordingly the complainant got amended  DDR lodged on 23.9.2021 Exhibit C-5.  Thereafter the OP No.2  asked the complainant either to pay parking charges or to remove the subject car from the agency and accordingly the complainant paid Rs.5000/- vide bill Exhibit P-6 to OP No.2 and after that towed the same to her house. Not only this, the complainant had also paid an additional amount of Rs.2000/- to the OP No.2 for getting the accidental car to be delivered at her house. Later on the complainant was asked by OP No.1 to file an affidavit and clarify  the change of DDR and reason for gap of 21 days and delay caused from the date of accident. Thereafter the complainant submitted her affidavit to OP No.1. Again the complainant received letter Exhibit C-8 dated 17.3.2022 from OP No.1, stating about certain contradictions in the DDR and the complainant was asked to explain the delay.  The complainant again explained to OP No.1 that he had already explained every fact in his affidavit but despite of that  the OP No.1 did not care to settle the claim of the complainant. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of fact, cause of action. However, it is admitted that the complainant is registered owner of the subject car and she got the same insured  from the answering OP vide policy Annexure R-1/1, which was valid w.e.f. 18.9.2020 to 17.9.2021  for IDV of Rs.2,13,750/-. It is further admitted that the intimation qua the accident of the subject car was also given to the answering OP and thereafter the complainant had also sent claim intimation letter Annexure R-1/2. It is further alleged that there was material contradiction in the general DDR  Annexure R-1/3  and the affidavit submitted by the complainant with OP No.1 as in the affidavit the complainant had stated that her brother and his wife or third party had not sustained injury  whereas in the general DDR  the so called driver has reported that he and his wife sustained minor injuries. It is further alleged that there are material contradiction in both the DDR dated 2.9.2021 and 23.9.2021  which was submitted  by the complainant with the answering OP and the complainant reported the matter to the police after a gap of 21 days of the accident, regarding which explanation should have been given by the complainant to the answering OP. It is further alleged that on receipt of documents from the complainant, independent surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and its genuineness. Despite of several requests made  by the answering OP to the complainant to explain the contradictions but the same were not explained and as such the claim of the complainant was closed. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of fact, cause of action estopple and also that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that the subject car was brought to the agency of the answering OP, which was towed by it from the place of accident to the workshop and  on payment of certain charges by the complainant.
4. Complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant is registered owner of the subject car as is evident from Exhibit P-1(b) and the subject car was insured with the OP No.1 as is evident from Exhibit P-1(a)  copy of policy  and the subject car was being driven  at the time of accident by the brother of the complainant namely Jeetinder Singh and the car was totally damaged and immediately after accident the matter was reported by the driver Jeetinder Singh to the police on the same day of accident i.e. on 2.9.2021 vide Exhibit P-2 and thereafter another DDR dated 23.9.2021 was reported with the police vide  Exhibit P-5 and intimation qua the accident was given to OP No.1 by the complainant  on 8.9.2021 as is also evident from Exhibit P-4 (a) i.e.  via insurance claim intimation letter and the claim of the complainant was closed by OP No.1 on the ground of certain contradiction in the DDRs  Exhibit P-2 and P-5 and also on the ground that there was delay in reporting the matter to the police  on 23.9.2021, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  OP No.1 is unjustified in closing the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if the OP No.1 is justified in closing the claim of the complainant and the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Admittedly the claim of the complainant was closed by OP No.1 simply on the ground that  there was delay  of 21 days in  reporting the matter to the police by the complainant on 23.9.2021 whereas the accident had taken place on 2.9.2021  and there are contradictions in the general DDRs Exhibit P-2 and P-5 recorded on 2.9.201 and 23.9.2021  and the said contradictions could not be explained by the complainant despite of the fact that the complainant was asked by the OP No.1 to explain the same by sending several letters to the complainant.
   3. On perusal of Exhibit P-2  the DDR, which was reported by Jeetinder Singh who was driving the subject car at the time of accident indicates that he has stated in the DDR that he and his wife sustained minor injuries  when he was driving the subject car and the same met with an accident  whereas in DDR Exhibit P-5  dated 23.9.2021 he has clarified the fact that the complainant is the owner of the subject car. Thus from the aforesaid minor contradiction which occurs in both the DDR  Exhibit P-2 and P-5 it is clear that the same are not of  such degree which could make  the entire case of the complainant doubtful as it is a general tendency that after an accident, whenever the matter is reported by the affected person to the police, such minor contradictions are bound to occur. Moreover, the aforesaid contradictions  are not so material that the same could make claim of the complainant doubtful or in violation of terms and conditions of the subject policy especially when it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is registered owner of the subject car and Jeetinder Singh brother of the complainant was driving the subject car at the time of accident by having valid driving license.
   4. Another contradiction having been pointed out by OP No.1 that in the DDR Exhibit P-2 Jeetinder Singh stated that he and his wife suffered minor injuries  whereas in affidavit Annexure R-1/4  submitted by the complainant wherein she has stated that his brother and other occupant of the subject car has not sustained any injury. Again the aforesaid minor contradiction is not going to make the claim of the complainant  doubtful especially when the driver of the subject car  Jeetinder Singh had stated that the occupants of the subject car had suffered only minor injuries and further when it has come on record that complainant was not in the car at the time of accident, her deposition in the affidavit about factum of injuries  is not fatal to the claim of complainant.
   5. So far as the defence of the OP No.1 that there is delay of 21 days in reporting the matter by the complainant to the police vide DDR P-5  on 23.9.2021 whereas the accident had taken place on 2.9.2021, is concerned, it again  appears that the OP No.1 has ignored the first DDR dated 2.9.2021 Exhibit P-2 which was reported by the driver Jeetinder Singh  on the date of accident itself. Moreover, claim intimation letter was also sent by the complainant to the OP No.1 on 8.9.2021 as is evident from Exhibit P-4(a).
   6. Moreover, Interim/preliminary survey report Annexure R-1/7 proved on record by OP No.1 itself makes it clear that the surveyor has found fresh damage to the subject car  on its inspection by also stating that the damage was coincide with the history of accident, making no room for doubt that the subject car had not met with an accident.
   7. In view of the above discussion it is held that on the relevant date, time and place the subject car was being driven by Jeetinder Singh by possessing valid driving license and  subject car badly damaged in the accident as  is also evident from Interim/preliminary survey report  Annexure R-1/7 and the OP has wrongly closed the claim of the complainant on mere surmises and conjucture. Hence, the aforesaid act of OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
   8. So far as the  quantum of claim is concerned, the survey report Annexure R-1/7  has not been disputed by OP No.1 wherein the surveyor clearly recommended the net assessed loss of insurer on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.2,12,750/- after making deduction of Rs.1000/- towards policy excess from the IDV, it is safe to hold that the complainant is entitled for the amount assessed by the surveyor.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1  is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹2,12,750/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards. The wreck/salvage of the subject car shall, however, be retained and disposed of by the OP No.1/insurer at their own.
2. to pay an amount of 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/08/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member