BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 395 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 29.06.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 02.05.2011 |
Bhim Sen Aggarwal r/o H.No.2105/1, Sector 44, Chandigarh ….…Complainant V E R S U S The Reliance General Insurance through its Authorized Signatory, SCO No.212-214, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Anish Babbar, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Maninder Singh, Proxy counsel for Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Adv. for OP PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Bhim Sen Aggarwal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant got insurance policy from OP on 11.08.2009. The policy was issued by OP after securitization of the entire documents and fulfillment of all the formalities. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle met with an accident. OP was immediately informed regarding the accident. OP appointed surveyor who assessed the loss to the vehicle. The claim was lodged with the OP along with the bills for repairs issued by the authorized dealer. The allegation of the complainant is that he was shocked to receive the letter dated 23.03.10 qua which he was informed that the claim had been repudiated as he had suppressed the material facts of having claim from the previous insurance company i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. It is averred by the complainant that OP had illegally repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.03.2010, hence this complaint. 2. OP filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections and denying the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, it is replied that the extension of the insurance policy was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The policy was extended to the complainant and no claim bonus @ 20% was given on the basis of information provided by him that he had not availed no claim bonus from the previous insurer i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and as such he is entitled for the NCB @ 20%. It has been pleaded that on intimation regarding the accident, Sh.Saravjit Singh, Surveyor was appointed who after physical inspection of the vehicle and going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy assessed the net liability to Rs.30,514/-. The amount of Rs.30514/- was payable if the claim was admissible as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further replied that during the investigation, it came to light that the complainant had taken the claim from the previous insurance company i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and the said fact had been concealed by him at the time of obtaining the policy in question and as such the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 23.03.2010. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the proxy counsel for the OP and have also perused the record very carefully. 5. Now the only point which calls decision from this Court is whether the repudiation of the claim is legal. The answer to this is negative. 6. The perusal of repudiation letter dated 23.03.2010 makes it clear that the OP had repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had taken the claim from the previous insurer i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. but he had never disclosed the said fact to the OP and claimed NCB and so, as per the GR-27 of India Motor Tariff, the claim could not be considered and as such the same was considered as “No Claim”. 7. The parties are not at variance, rather are in agreement that the said car met with an accident on 24.02.2010. There is also no dispute that the car in question was insured with the OP on the day of accident. 8. The objection raised by the OP-insurance company that the complainant-consumer was guilty of concealment of facts qua "no claim bonus" does not stand to reason, the reason being that it was the duty fastened upon the OP to verify about the entitlement of No Claim Bonus (N.C.B.) to the complainant at the time of issuance of this policy. Moreso, the policy continued running from 11.08.2009 to 24.02.2010 i.e. the date of the accident and during this period OP did not demand the difference of NCB from the complainant. Reliance placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as TATA AIR General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gulzari Singh reported in II(2010) CPJ -272 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Prem Singh reported in IV(2008) CPJ-355, Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in First Appeal No.1507 of 2000 decided on 10.07.06 titled as National Insurance Co. Vs. Avtar Singh and F.A. No.1002 of 2006 decided on 26.09.2006 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another versus Piara Singh. 9. Admittedly, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.30,514/- whereas the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to make payment of Rs91,437/- towards the expenditure incurred on repair of the car. It is settled proposition of law that the surveyor’s report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any cogent evidence to the contrary. So mere placing on record the bills for Rs.15000/- and Rs.76,437/- by the complainant is not sufficient to ignore the report of the surveyor without placing on record the receipts or the affidavits of the persons to whom the payment has been made. Therefore, the report of the surveyor is to be accepted as the surveyor is an expert and also an independent person to assess the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant. Thus, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant can be allowed on the basis of the surveyor report. Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Company reported in III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC) 10. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is partly accepted and OP is directed to pay Rs.30,514/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 11. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 02.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
