Punjab

Sangrur

CC/413/2017

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Yogesh Gupta

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  413

                                                Instituted on:    17.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       12.02.2018

 

Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of Village Ghabdan, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Chhoti Baradari, through its Divisional Manager, Patiala.

3.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. And Head Office Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110 002 through its MD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.

For Opp. Parties       :       Shri Ashish Grover, Adv. 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurpreet Singh, 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 Bolero car bearing registration number PB-13-AL-6620 from the OPs vide cover note number 665431 for the period from 30.4.2015 to 29.4.2016 by paying the requisite premium. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 20.10.2015, the said vehicle damaged in an accident, of which FIR number 299 dated 21.10.2015 was recorded in PS City Sangrur and intimation of the said accident was also given to the OPs. The police has already presented challan against one Karam Singh. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by one Sukhvir Gir and the police has also recorded his statement. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds, despite his best efforts. 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 insurance claim amount of Rs.6,19,857/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action, that the dispute involves complicated questions of law and facts, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs under the policy for the period from 30.04.2015 to 29.04.2016.  It has been stated that after receipt of the intimation of the accident of the vehicle in question, the Ops appointed Bee Vee Investigating Agency, Patiala to investigate the matter, who submitted his detailed investigation report dated 4.12.2015 to the OPs and concluded that one person was present in the vehicle at the time of accident i.e. Manjinder Singh and not Sukhvir Gir.  It is further averred that the investigator also found that right front portion including the front pillar was badly damaged and pressed inside, which indicates that the person driving might not have escaped unhurt and without injury.  It is further averred that the OPs wrote many letters to the complainant dated 15.12.2015, 21.01.2016 and 09.02.2016 and asked the complainant to produce the copy of driving license of Manjinder Singh, as Sukhvir Gir was not driving the vehicle at the spot.   Further case of the Ops is that the Ops also appointed Er. G.S.Riar as surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his final survey report dated 16.11.2015 and assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.4,99,357/- after deducting the salvage and policy clause, if any, liability arises.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 copies of the documents and  affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-17 copies of documents and affidavits 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 Bolero car bearing registration number PB-13-AL-6620 from the OPs for the period from 30.04.2015 to 29.04.2016 for Rs.6,19,857- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.19928/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-5 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 20.10.2015, of which FIR number 299 dated 21.10.2015 was got recorded, as is evident from the copy of FIR on record as Ex.C-7. It is further admitted fact that after receipt of the intimation of loss of the vehicle, the OPs appointed the investigator, namely,  BEE VEE Investigating Agency, Patiala and finally appointed Er. G.S. Riar to assess the loss.  A bare perusal of the report, Ex.OP-2 of BEE VEE Investigating Agency shows that it found that Mahindra Bolero in question was insured with the OPs and the said vehicle was being driven by Shri Sukhvir Gir at the time of accident, but it is reported that Shri Sukhvir Gir has escaped unhurt whereas Shri Manjinder singh (who was reported to be travelling next to Shri Sukhvir Gir) had sustained injuries on his head and leg and had remained admitted in Civil Hospital Sangrur and further has stated that the investigator had found in his secret inquiry from the spot that only one person was travelling in the vehicle, who had sustained injuries on his head and leg meaning thereby Shri Manjinder Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but we are unable to accept such contention of the Ops that Shri Manjinder Singh was driving the vehicle not Sukhvir Gir, as it is clearly mentioned in the affidavit Ex.C-2 of Shri Manjinder Singh that the vehicle was being driven by Sukhvir Gir and the said Manjinder Singh was sitting on the conductor side.  Further Ex.C-3 is the affidavit of Sukhvir Gir, wherein he has clearly admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and further Ex.C-4 is the copy of claim petition, wherein it is clearly stated that one Sukhvir Gir was driving the vehicle at the time of accident on 20.10.2015. The same is the position of FIR Ex.C-7, wherein it is clearly mentioned that Sukhvir Gir was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  Further Ex.C-12 the statement of Shri Sukhvir Gir, wherein he again has mentioned that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Further reliance can be had on the judgment of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Nuradin 2016(4) CPJ 41, wherein the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle not driven by person claimed to be driver and driver by complainant. No evidence produced by investigating officer that vehicle driven by another person such as statements of persons disclosing the name of driver, as such appeal against the order of the Forum allowing the complaint was dismissed.  On the other hand, the OPs are relying upon only on the report of Bee Vee Investigating Agency, Ex.OP-2 that the vehicle was not being driven by Sukhvir Gir, but we may mention that this report is not supported by any supporting documents, as such, we are unable to go with the report of the investigating agency Ex.OP-3. The Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant on mere surmises and conjectures.

 

6.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant by the OPs. We have perused the report of Er. G.S.Riar, Ex.OP-4, wherein the surveyor has assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.499357/- as net liability of the insurer.  A bare perusal of the report further reveals that out of Rs.619857/-, the surveyor has assessed the expected salvage as Rs.120000/- plus Rs.500/- on account of policy clause, as such net claim payable to the complainant comes to the tune of Rs.4,99,357/- only.  As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,99,357/- on account of assessed loss of the damaged vehicle.

 

7.             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.

 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,99,357/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.08.2017 till realisation.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             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.

                        February 12, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member

                                                             

                               

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member