Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 83

                                                                   Instituted on     : 03.02.2022

                                                                   Decided on       : 30.05.2024

Vijender Age 50 years son of Ramphal, resident of village Girawar, Tehsil Meham Distt.Rohtak, Mob. No. 8607859951.

                                                                   ……….………….Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. office at Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.  

                                                     ...........……Respondent/opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.J.P.Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.S.Malik Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. HR-46D-5380, which was duly insured with opposite party vide policy no.35380331200100001847 for the period 21.08.2020 to 20.08.2021, IDV value of vehicle was Rs.16,50,000/- as per insurance policy.  On 29.05.2021 the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was got burnt due to short circuit in the area of Pipli Tol Plaza. Complainant duly registered GD No.24 dated 30.05.2021 in PS Kharkhoda. The vehicle of the complainant suffered total loss in this incident. The concerned official of the Fire Brigade department duly issued certificate/report in this regard. The complainant immediately intimated to official of respondent verbally and in writing about the burning of vehicle. On acknowledging the same, opposite party deputed the surveyor, who inspected the said damaged vehicle. The complainant submitted his claim for the said damaged vehicle and submitted all the required documents and completed all the required formalities as required by the respondent for disbursement of the claim amount of said vehicle, which was acknowledged by the respondent. Respondent assured to the complainant to disburse the claim amount within short period. The complainant visited to the office of respondent many a times personally and also contacted verbally to disburse the genuine claim amount, but respondent is harassing the complainant without any rhyme and reason.  There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by not disbursing the genuine claim of complainant regarding the said vehicle. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.16,50,000/- on account of damage of said vehicle along with interest @ 18% per annum till its actual realization, to pay Rs.100000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the party. Opposite party filed its written statement submitting therein that spot survey of the vehicle was conducted by Merit Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd., who in his spot survey report has stated that: "Spot report of said vehicle was carried out by Mr. Pankaj Rohila, surveyor from Sonepat, vide report no. 11318 dated 05/06/2021. We confirm damages considered herein for the survey matches to the damages mentioned in sport survey report of Mr. Pankaj Rohila. We also confirm that the damages considered also matches to the cause and nature of accident as explained by insured in the claim form. Mr. Pankaj Rohilla surveyor has also confirmed the fitment of unauthorized electrical components in the vehicle at the time spot survey and that fitment of these may lead to such incidence of fire". Competent authority has considered the spot report of the said vehicle which was carried out by Mr. Pankaj Rohilla, Surveyor and final survey report alongwith terms and conditions of policy as well as Motor Vehicle Act and settled the claim as "NO CLAIM". A repudiation letter dated 04/03/2022 was sent to the complainant through registered post. So, claim is not payable as per terms and condition of policy and law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The opposite party has acted upon the surveyor's report, who is independent and submitted his report without prejudice. Hence, claim is not payable by the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. 

3.                Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.12.2022. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 25.01.2024.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 In the present case, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R1 on the ground that : “The spot survey is conducted by surveyor Mr. Pankaj Rohilla and then final survey was conducted by surveyor M/s Merit Insurance surveyors and loss assessors Pvt. Ltd. and as per their report, “The cause of fire in vehicle is cutting of main wiring harness, the fitting of unauthorized/untraced electrical components which comes under the breach of motor insurance policy and as per Motor Vehicle Act also. Hence, in our opinion, insurer is not liable for the claim”. We have also perused the letters Ex.R2 to Ex.R5.  As per letter Ex.R2 dated 17.06.2021, the surveyor Merit insurance has demanded some documents from the complainant. Thereafter  vide letter Ex.R2 dated 18.08.2021 and Ex.R3 dated 26.08.2021 they submitted that at the time of survey they found following unauthorized components to the cabin of vehcile: 1.)  2 extra (additional) head lamp at front bumper-both bulbs of rating 100/130 watts. , 2.)Both head lamp assy head lamp bulbs were replaced to Chinese bulbs having no working over it i.e. no specified voltage/wattage. 3). Fan in cabin, 4). Music system(local) in dash area and 2 nos, of speaker(medium size) in cabin. Opposite party asked the complainant to confirm the fitting of above mentioned fittings and reason for the same as this may lead the vehicle to fire.  Now the question arises that  when they wrote first letter dated 17.06.2018 they only demanded some documents and at that time why the alleged plea of unauthorized fittings was not taken by the surveyor. But after two months of inspection of vehicle, the alleged plea was taken by the surveyor which is the afterthought of the surveyor of the opposite parties. We have also perused the spot survey report Ex.R6 dated 05.06.2021 of surveyor Pankaj Rohilla. It is nowhere mentioned in this report Ex.R6 that there were fitting of unauthorized/untraced electrical components in the alleged vehicle.  Moreover complainant has placed on record a certificate issued by Shree Motors Pvt. Ltd.(Eicher), who has submitted that  they sold the vehicle  to the complainant in which two fans fitted with two other sockets in cabin  and inner cabin fitted. Meaning thereby there was no unauthorized fittings in the vehicle in question. Two survey reports Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 have been placed on record by the opposite party but no affidavit of either of the surveyor has been placed on record by the opposite party. The insurance company merely believed the survey report issued by Merit Insurance Surveyor and loss assessor and repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the fitment of extra sockets may lead to such incident of fire. Meaning thereby the surveyor has not confirmed that these sockets lead the incident. He used the word ‘May’ which means that it was possible but not confirmed.  Hence without any cogent evidence, it is not proved that there was unauthorized fitting in the cabin of vehicle and as such the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. The vehicle in question was totally burnt in the accident, as such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per survey report Ex.R5, the surveyor has assessed the loss under four heads i.e. i) On Repair basis Rs.1330840/-, ii) On Total loss basis Rs.1648500/-, iii) On Net of salvage basis-with RC-NA, iv) On net of salvage basis without RC Rs.1378500/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount on net of salvage basis without RC Rs.1378500/-.  It is also observed that vehicle in question was HPA with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and as per document ‘Annexure-JN-A’ it is submitted by the Bank that they have no objection in cancelling the HPA/Hypothecation/Lease clause from the record.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1378500/-(Rupees thirteen lac seventy eight thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.03.02.2022 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  However complainant is directed to send a letter to RTO for cancellation of R.C within 15 days.  Complainant is further directed not to use the vehicle in any manner and not to ply the same on road.  

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

30.05.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member