Haryana

Ambala

CC/135/2018

Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  135 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  01.05.2018

                                                          Date of decision   :  28.05.2019

Rajiv Kumar son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, resident of Village and Post office Adhoya Hinduan, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

 

……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Anishka Building, Opposite Bus Stand, Naraingarh, District Ambala-134203 through its Branch Manager.

 

  ….…. Opposite Party

  

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

Coram:       Ms. Neena Sandhu, President

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

.

                            

Present:       Sh. Chetan Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:         Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party(hereinafter referred to as ‘Op’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To pay repair charges of Rs.52,849/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 23.05.2017 till date of payment.
2. To pay of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. 
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses/costs.

Or

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

 

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a registered owner of a Swift D’zire LDI BS IV Car bearing Registration No.HR-54D-5116 and he got the same insured with the OP for a total sum of Rs.5,10,000/-, having validity with effect from 24.01.2017 to 23.01.2018. On 23.05.2017, the said car met with an accident at the turn of village Damli, District Kurukshetra, within the area of Police Station-Shahabad and in this regard an FIR No.267 dated 02.06.2017, under Section-279/337/338 of IPC was got registered. In the said accident, the car in question was also badly damaged and he got repaired the said car from Ravi Motors Maruti Authorized Service Station, located at Ambala Cantt. The intimation regarding the accident was given to the OP and it sent Surveyor to inspect the said car at Ravi Motors from where the complainant got his car repaired. Complainant paid of Rs.52,849/- as repair charges to the Ravi Motors vide bill dated 29.06.2017. Complainant had submitted all the necessary and requisite documents as demanded by the OP. Thereafter, again and again the complainant visited the office of the OP in this regard and requested the officials of the OP to pay of Rs.52,849/-, but its officials always postponed the matter on one pretext or the others. A legal notice was got served upon the OP on 23.02.2018. However, a false reply to the legal notice of the complainant was given.  Due to this act of the Op, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vague; no jurisdiction and concealed true materials.  On merits it is stated that Op vide letter dated 09.02.2018 repudiated the claim as the complainant concealed true facts regarding the name of driver who was driving the Car No.HR-54-D-5116. In the FIR no.267 dated 02.06.2017, resisted with P.S. Shahbad, name of driver has been mentioned as Roop Singh, whereas he informed the company stated that Rajiv Kumar was driving the vehicle in question at the time of alleged occurrence. Accident took place on 23.05.2017 but the information to the insurance company was given on 07.06.2017 i.e. after delay of 15 days wrongly written as 10 days.  On lodging of claim by the complainant, insurance company appointed a surveyor, who after thorough examination has assessed the loss of Rs.49,988.96/-. However, as per terms and conditions of the policy, no amount is payable because the complainant has concealed the name of the driver, who was driving the car at the time of accident. As such there is no deficiency on the part of OP and prayed for dismissed the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version the complainant tendered affidavit Annexure C/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP, tendered affidavits, Annexure R/A to R/B along with documents, Annexure R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the car in question was duly insured with the OP. It is not disputed that the said car met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. The OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 09.02.2018, Annexure R/7 on the ground that insured concealed the material fact about who was actually driving the car in question at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the OP has argued that the OP has rightly repudiated the claim because the insured/complainant produced his driving license before the spot surveyor but in the vehicle accident intimation, Annexure R-4, he has mentioned the name of the driver as Roop Singh and produced his license before the surveyor at the time of final survey. As such the insured has concealed the material facts thus as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim is not payable. Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in fact at the time of accident Roop Singh was driving the car in question.  The name of the Roop Singh as driver in the FIR Annexure C-5 and also in the ‘vehicle accident intimation’, Annexure R-4, has been mentioned. However, in Annexure R-3 the complainant inadvertently had mentioned his name in the column of driver. It is a bonafide mistake and OP cannot take undue advantage of the same. The complainant is thus entitled to get the claim under the policy.

In the FIR, Annexure C-5 and vehicle accident intimation, Annexure R-4,  the name of the driver has been mentioned as Roop Singh. This fact that at the time of accident, Roop Singh was driving the car in question also got fortified from the award dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra. No such document has been produced by the OP to establish that Roop Singh was not driving the car at the time of accident. It may be stated here that Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) has issued a circular dated 20.09.2011, that genuine claim should not be rejected, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on sound logic and valid ground. In the case of Madras Port Trust Vs. Himanshu International (1979) 4, SCC, 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that deprecated  the practice often  adopted  by the Insurance  Companies of denying  claims  on technical pleas, even  though  the claims  lodged  with them are otherwise  well  founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon the technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.  In this view of the matter, the OP cannot be said to be justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and is thus liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him, as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                Now, the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of the indemnification. The plea of the complainant is that he had spent Rs. 52,849/- for the repair of the car in question. However, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.49,988/-  as is evident from the Motor Final Survey Report, Annexure R-9. The report of the surveyor is well explained and detailed one. Therefore, we are of the view that the OP is liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs. 49,988/-.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.49,988/-  alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 09.02.2018 till its realization.  
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigations expenses. 

 

The Op is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :28.05.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member                President