Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/143/2019

Ram Saran Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Bedi

01 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

        Complaint No.143 of 2019

        Date of instt. 22.04.2019

        Date of Decision:01.04.2021.

 

Ram Saran Goyal , aged 60 years, son of late Sh.Lal Chand, resident of house No.936, Sector -7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.                                                       

                                                                      ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1.The United India Insurance Co. Limited, SCO-97, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.The United India Insurance Co.Limited, Divisional Office -14, 4^th Floor No.1., New Colony, above SBI Gurgaon – 122001 through its Branch Manager/Incharge.

                        .……Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

Smt. Neelam, Member.

 

Present:     Shri R.K.Bedi Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Paras Manocha , Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainants Ram Saran Goyal against United India Insurance Co.Limited etc.- the opposite parties.

 

2.            It is stated in the complaint that  is registered owner of Car Toyata Etios VD bearing registration No. HR-07T-4556. The said car of the complainant was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy No. 22140031180160151900 valid from 15.7.2018 to 14.7.2019. The sum assured under the said policy was 4,38,000/- and the complainant paid the premium of Rs.11,000/-. It is further averred that on 22.12.2018 the said car of the complainant met with an accident because one motor cycle dashed into the said car from behind, damaging the bumper completely and dicky was badly damaged.   The complainant submitted the claim form at Toyota showroom on 24.12.2018.  The Toyota Showroom informed  the OP about the accident of the car and OPs accordingly  deputed the surveyor Sh.G.S.Virk  to inspect the car. The car was after repairs was handed over to the complainant on 31.12.2018 after the payment of bill of Rs.33,983/- by the complainant.  After waiting for sufficient time, the complainant  met to OP No.1 and enquired about the claim but the  OP No.1 told that the claim has been processed and has been sent to OPNo.2 for final approval but the claim of the complainant has not  been yet paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has prayed that the OPs be directed to make the payment of claim to the complainant alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to  him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Issuance of the insurance policy and submission of the claim has been admitted by the OPs. It is submitted that on receipt of the intimation of loss, the OPs deputed Sh.G.S.Virk, Surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor has examined the  vehicle and loss. Thereafter, there was requirement of some documents i.e. previous insurance policy to check the continuity of the insurance and eligibility of NCB availed by the insured and payment receipt for further claim process but the insured/complainant  had not submitted the same with the OPs till date. The OPs requested the complainant personally, telephonically many times as well as through e-mail dated 15.5.2019 and 29.5.2019 and 8.7.2019 to provide previous insurance policy and payment receipt for claim process of the vehicle but the complainant has failed to do the needful. It is also submitted that the matter has not been reported to the police and no FIR/DDR has been got registered by the complainant which also creates doubt for any loss of the vehicle in any alleged accident. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in  services  on the part of the OPs and has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OPs in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 and closed their evidence.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant  is registered owner of Car Toyata Etios VD bearing registration No. HR-07T-4556. The said car of the complainant was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy No. 22140031180160151900 valid from 15.7.2018 to 14.7.2019. The sum assured under the said policy was 4,38,000/- and the complainant paid the premium of Rs.11,000/-. It is argued  that on 22.12.2018 the said car of the complainant met with an accident because one motor cycle dashed into the said car from behind, damaging the bumper completely and dicky was badly damaged.   The complainant submitted the claim form at Toyota showroom on 24.12.2018.  The Toyota Showroom informed  the OP about the accident of the car and OPs accordingly  deputed the surveyor Sh.G.S.Virk  to inspect the car. The car was after repairs was handed over to the complainant on 31.12.2018 after the payment of bill of Rs.33,983/- by the complainant but the claim of the complainant has not been made which is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. The learned counsel for complainant has also argued that e-mail Ex.C-10 was also sent to the OPs but nothing has been done by them.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that e-mail as shown on Ex.C-3 does not belong to the complainant.

 

7.             On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that  on receipt of the intimation of loss, the OPs deputed Sh.G.S.Virk, Surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor has examined the  vehicle and loss. Thereafter, there was requirement of some documents i.e. previous insurance policy to check the continuity of the insurance and eligibility of NCB availed by the insured and payment receipt for further claim process but the insured/complainant  had not submitted the same with the OPs till date. It is also argued that the   OPs requested the complainant personally, telephonically many times as well as through e-mail dated 15.5.2019 and 29.5.2019 and 8.7.2019 to provide previous insurance policy and payment receipt for claim process of the vehicle but the complainant has failed to do the needful and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. It is argued that the claim has not been repudiated so far and as such the present complaint is pre mature one. It is also argued that there is delay of two days in giving intimation of accident. The OPs have argued that they had given intimation for supply of documents on the e-mail Gaurav.kakyan @ gmail.com.

 

8.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that issuance of the insurance policy and damages to the vehicle are not at all in dispute in this case. The delay of two days in intimation is also not vital in this case because vide Ex.R-7 surveyor Sh.G.S.Virk has mentioned in the report that “ it was observed that the history of accident is in accordance to the damages sustained by it and damages are fresh and accidental in nature. Thus, the accident in question also not remains in dispute. Non  lodging of FIR or DDR is also not were not necessary in this case because there is no loss to the third party and even the driver of the car has not sustained any injury, therefore, this argument of the OPs is also rejected.  The argument of the OPs that they sent e-mail for supply of documents as shown on Ex.C-3 is also devoid of any merit because as per the stand of the complainant this e-mail does not belong to him. Further, when the surveyor as Ex.C-7 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.32167/- then the claim of the complainant cannot be denied on technical grounds. If the OPs were in necessity of previous policy, the same could have been searched from the internet and such type of formalities are required to be done before issuance of the new policy by the OPs. On the internet claim regarding NCB could also be verified by the OPs. Thus, the OPs have denied the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds especially when the claim of the complainant has been already assessed to the tune of Rs.32167/- as per surveyor report Ex.C-7. For nonpayment of the claim of the complainant, there is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to make the payment of claim of Rs.32167/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 22.11.2019 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to her and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copies of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Certified copies of this order be prepared and supplied to the parties concerned. The file be indexed and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:01.04.2021                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                             Member.