BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                               Complaint No. 153 of 2017

                                                               Date of Instt.: 25.10.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 19.2.2021

Nafe Singh son of Sh. Kanhiya Lal, resident of village Dohka Hariya, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                                        ………Complainant

                                            Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at Zoo road, Red Cross Building, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through Branch Manager.

                Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:      Mr. Nagender Singh, President.

                Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member. 

Present:     Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Adv. for respondent/OP.

ORDER:-

NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

        Brief facts of the present complaint are that Ford Fuision + Dura Torq vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-70B-4066 of complainant has been insured with the respondent vide insurance policy No. 1112023115P115976772 w.e.f. 25.3.2016 to 24.3.2017. It is averred that on 22.4.2016 at about 5 ½ O’ Clock, the friends of complainant namely Om Parkash and one Suresh Kumar were going from Tosham to Kural and when they reached near brick kiln situated between Sungarpur and Kairu, then all of sudden excel of vehicle had broken and vehicle became unbalanced and hit with the kikar tree and the vehicle of complainant completely damaged. It is averred that due to this heavy impact Suresh son of Gurdayal,  resident of village Kural sustained injuries on his left hand and sustained fracture and after that accident, Om Parkash took said Suresh to Anand Hospital, Bhiwani for his treatment and got admitted there. It is averred that after the accident, the complainant informed the insurance company and the surveyor of the respondent company inspected the vehicle of complainant. It is averred that as the vehicle was completely damaged and is not repairable, so the complainant is entitled for IDV amount of vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,34,000/-from the respondent. Earlier, the respondent had asked the complainant to settle the claim to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-instead of Rs. 2,34,000/-and also took in writing from the complainant that if the RC is cancelled by the complainant, they will settle the claim. The respondent also obtained affidavit of said Suresh that he sustained injuries in this accident and he will not claim any amount from the respondent. The respondent vide their letter dated 2.8.2017 repudiated the claim of complainant mentioning breach of policy condition No. 1 i.e. late information more than one month. Due to non-payment of claim amount of vehicle, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment etc. It is averred that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/-as insured amount of vehicle of complainant along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this forum may found deem fit and proper.

2.             Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed the written statement taking some preliminary objections such as the complaint is not maintainable, the complaint is based upon wrong facts, no locus standi, no jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is submitted by the respondent that on receipt of intimation dated 25.5.2016 that the insured vehicle No. HR-70B-4066 (Ford Fusion Car) met with an accident on 22.4.2016 at 5.30 PM near village Kairu, Surveyor was deputed and who submitted the report and recommended to settle the claim at Rs. 1,83,000/-subject to admission of liabilities as per policy terms and conditions. The competent authority observed that the complainant has not intimated the claim well in time and since the delay in intimating the accident is more than a month and no satisfactory reply to clarify the delay was given, so his claim was repudiated by the competent authority on account of breach of policy condition No. 1 and the repudiation of claim was duly intimated to the complainant vide registered letter dated 2.8.2017. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the respondent.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20 and closed the evidence on 20.3.2019.

                On the other hand, the respondent tendered into evidence Annexure R-1 to annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on 29.1.2021.

4.             We have heard the arguments of learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the contents of reply filed by the respondent and drawn the attention of this Forum (now Commission) towards the documents so placed on record by the parties. The learned counsel of complainant also drawn the attention of this Forum (now Commission) towards the case law titled Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2020 (arising out of SLP © No. 24370 of 2015) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent drawn our attention towards the case law titled National Garage Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2006) CPJ 396, decided by Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur.

5.           After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, going through the entire case file, perusing the case law cited above by the respective parties and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that the vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 22.4.2016 at about 5.30 PM. Regarding this accident, a DDR No. 9 dated 26.4.2016 in Police Post, Tosham, District Bhiwani (vide Annexure C-12) was got registered. The driver of vehicle was also got injured in this accident and the treatment record of the occupants of vehicle in question are Annexure C-6 to Annexure C-11. The claim of complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 2.8.2017 which is Annexure C-14. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the information regarding accident has been given belatedly into the insurance company by the complainant, hence, there is breach of policy condition No. 1. The complainant also placed on record Annexure C-15, the Information got under RTI Act, 2005 from the insurance company having 27 pages. We have minutely perused the survey report got under RTI Act by the complainant. The respondent also placed on record survey report prepared by Sh. Pardeep K. Gupta as Annexure R-3 and other documents i.e. no claim letter Annexure R-1, an application to the insurance company as Annexure R-2 and insurance policy as Annexure R-4.  The insurance company closed the claim file of complainant on the ground that the claim has been intimated belatedly and this fact has been proved through Annexure R-2, an application moved by the complainant before insurance company. We have minutely perused the Survey report issued by Sh. Pardeep K. Gupta Annexure R-1. In this survey report, it has not been disclosed anywhere that on which date the surveyor has received the information that the vehicle in question has been damaged and he has been appointed as surveyor in this case. The surveyor has submitted his report before the insurance company on dated 18.12.2016 and claim of complainant has been repudiated on date dated 2.8.2017. As per written statement, the respondent officials has got clarification from the complainant that why the claim has been intimated in the insurance company belatedly. As per written statement, the reply has been filed by the complainant and the competent authority of the insurance company after considering the reply which was not found satisfactory, repudiated the claim of complainant. In this complaint, the respondent official failed to place on record both the letters through which the clarification was sought and the reply was filed by the complainant before the insurance company. Regarding the accident, an intimation regarding the damage has been given in the concerned police station on 26.4.2016 and regarding this fact, a DDR was also got registered. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and case law, we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in repudiating the claim of complainant. The assessment is placed on record by the insurance company. The surveyor has assessed the liability under three heads i.e. firstly, liability on repair basis, which come to Rs. 2,20,345/-after deducting the less policy clause as Rs. 1000/-, secondly,  liability on net of salvage basis without RC,  comes to Rs. 1,83,000/-after considering Wreck value without RC as Rs. 50,000/-and thirdly,  liability on net of salvage basis with RC, comes to Rs. 2,33,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that IDV of vehicle is Rs. 2,34,000/-. As per this report, the wreck value is considered as Rs. 65,000/-with RC and Rs. 50,000/-with RC cancellation. In this survey report, it has not been mentioned anywhere that from where the surveyor has picked up the price of damaged vehicle as Rs. 65,000/- or Rs. 50,000/-, because no auction report is placed on record either by the surveyor or by the insurance company regarding the price of damaged vehicle. So as per our view, the wreck value of the damaged vehicle was assessed by the surveyor on higher side as Rs. 65,000/-or Rs. 50,000/-without any basis. After perusal of report, it is confirmed that the vehicle was badly damaged and it has not been repaired. So, we come into the conclusion that the wreck value of damaged vehicle should be assessed as Rs. 25,000/-without R.C. In this way, the respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,09,000/- (Rs. 2,34,000/- -(minus) Rs. 25,000/-) to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to intimate to the Registration Authority regarding cancellation of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question and the complainant is further directed to give intimation to the insurance company regarding information of cancellation of registration certificate to the Registration Authority within a period of 15 days. The respondent company is also directed that after receiving the intimation of cancellation of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, it will pay Rs. 2,09,000/-to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its final payment. The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-to the complainant on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment etc. and also pay an amount of Rs. 3000/-on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. The above order be complied within one month from the date of receiving the copy of this order. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  The complaint stands allowed accordingly.

                File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

Dated: -19.2.2021

(Shriniwas Khundia)         (Nagender Singh)

                        Member                                     President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.