DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 462
Instituted on: 12.11.2018
Decided on: 05.04.2021
Shummy wife of Parveen Kumar, resident of H.No.776, Ward No.3, Street No.3, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 16/20, WEA, 1st Floor, Near Shashtri Park, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 through its Managing Director.
3. Krishna Vehicles Private Limited, Jind-Delhi Road, Sangrur through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: :Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.
For the OP No.1&2 :Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.
For the OP No.3 :Exparte.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
FACTS
1. Smt. Shummy, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant is the owner of one Honda Activa bearing registration number PB-13-AK-3058, which was got insured from OP number 2 online vide policy number 211200/31/2018/182099 for the period from 24.3.2018 to 23.3.2019. The OP number 2 issued insurance policy but no terms and conditions were supplied. Further case of the complainant is that on 17.4.2018 when the husband of the complainant turned said vehicle then unknown motorcycle hit the Activa in question and due to this husband of the complainant along with Activa fell down on the road, due to it the vehicle got damaged. As such, the complainant immediately gave intimation to OP number 1, who advised to park the vehicle at OP number 3, who will inspect it later on. Thereafter the surveyor visited the OP number 3 and inspected the vehicle in question and the complainant handed over all the documents and advised the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. As such the complainant got repaired the vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.10,347/- as such the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,347/- to OP number 3, but the claim amount was not paid by the OP number 1 to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.10,347/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
WRITTEN VERSION
2. In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 and 2 and the claim has been repudiated after considering all the material facts, that the disputed questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complaint is false, frivolous and bad in law and that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got the vehicle in question insured from the OPs. It has been denied that on 17.4.2018 the unknown vehicle hit the vehicle of the complainant and the husband of the complainant has fallen along with vehicle in question on the road. It is further averred in the written reply that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9868/- vide his report dated 28.4.2018 wherein the said surveyor has also reported that damages did not seem fresh in nature and asked OPs to check pre inspection of the vehicle in question before the disbursement of the claim. It is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated after considering all the facts. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.
3. Record shows that the OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
4. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the owner of one Honda Activa bearing registration number PB-13-AK-3058, which was got insured from OP number 2 online for the period from 24.3.2018 to 23.3.2019. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the OP number 2 issued insurance policy only but no terms and conditions were supplied. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on 17.4.2018 when the husband of the complainant turned said vehicle then unknown motorcycle hit the Activa in question and due to this husband of the complainant along with Activa fell down on the road, due to it the vehicle in question got damaged. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant approached the insurance company, who advised to park the vehicle at OP number 3, who will inspect it later on. Thereafter the surveyor visited the OP number 3 and inspected the vehicle in question and the complainant handed over all the documents and advised the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. As such the complainant got repaired the vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.10,347/- as such the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,347/- to OP number 3, but the claim amount was not paid by the OP number 1 to the complainant. As such the complainant has prayed that the complaint be accepted.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The learned counsel for the OPs has admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question and has further argued that the date of accident has been shown to be of 17.4.2018 just after 24 days of obtaining the policy. The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. Lastly, the Op has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 is the affidavit of Parveen Kumar, Ex.C-3 is the insurance policy, Ex.C-4 estimate of loss, Ex.C-5 job card, Ex.C-6 is the information sought along with survey report of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal in which it is mentioned that damage does not seem to be fresh in nature and the accident occurred on 17.4.2018 and damage does not seem to be new. It is accompanied by the total estimate of Rs.9868.94. Ex.C-7 is the claim intimation, Ex.C-8 is the claim intimation format, Ex.C-9 is the repudiation letter and in this repudiation letter it is mentioned that the insured lodged the claim with the insurance company on 17.4.2018 i.e. after 24 days from the insurance whereas looking at photographs and as mentioned by the surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal loss is old and is prior to insurance.
8. The claim was repudiated on the flimsy grounds and it is mentioned that the accident took place after 24 days from the insurance. It is worth mentioning here that the accident can take place even on the same day after the insurance. So there is no ground to repudiate the claim. It is mentioned by Shri Rajesh Aggarwal that the loss is old and is prior to insurance but there is no scientific evidence and evidence led by the insurance company to show that the loss was old one. Ex.C-10 is the affidavit of Shri Manjit Singh and Ex.C-11 is the receipt of Rs.10347/-. Ex.C-12 is the registration certificate.
9. On the other hand, Shri Mukesh Malhotra, Divisional Manager has filed his affidavit Ex.OP1&2/1 and has deposed as per the written version. Ex.OP1&2/2 is the affidavit of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal. Ex.OP1&2/3 is the survey report which has already been discussed. It is accompanies by photographs to show that the loss was old one. The OPs have tried to build their case on the basis of photographs to show that the loss was old one, but there is no scientific report on the file to show that the loss was old one. As such, we find that the claim is genuine one.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,347/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of survey report i.e. 28.4.2018 till realization. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 5, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
