BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 79 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 20.03.2015.
Date of Decision:21.06.2017
Yogender Singh son of Shri Jhabar Singh, resident of House No. F-10, Bank Colony, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Jawahar Market in front of Model Town, 323/21, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- Shri Sanjay Panwar, Agent United India Insurance Company Ltd., Court Road, Adarsh Nagar, Bhiwani.
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, Customer Care 24, Whites Road, Chennai through its Chief Manager.
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Zoo Road, near Red Cross Office, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Sh. Surat Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Satender Ghangas, Advocate for Ops no. 1, 3 & 4.
None for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had Scropio bearing registration No. HR61B-4961, Chassis No. MA1TA2GNKD2B27815 & Engine No. GND4B44257 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mfg. year 2013 for personal use and got insured the same with the OP from 25.02.2014 to 24.02.2015 vide policy No. 111282/31/13/01/00001479 and paid the premium to the OPs. It is alleged that on 01.05.2014 the complainant went in the marriage of his brother and the Scorpio was being driven by Sh. Pardeep son of Vijay Singh. It is alleged that another vehicle Bulero of the same marriage party hit scorpio from behind & both the vehicles damaged. The complainant informed the OPs about the accident and the survey was got conducted by the agent of the OPs. After that the complainant got his vehicle repaired from Supreme Mobiles Ltd., Loharu Road, Bhiwani vide invoice dated 29.05.2014 by paying Rs. 87,168/- as the OPs assured him for payment & asked to get repair his vehicle. The complainant had submitted claim papers to the Ops alongwith all required documents, but the claim was not settled by the OPs despite several requests. The complainant wrote letters to the OPs for settling the claim but the OPs have paid no heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs no. 1, 3 & 4 filed written statement alleging therein that the surveyor deputed by the respondent company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 65,678/- It is submitted that the claim of the complainant having been repudiated and he having been informed accordingly there was no question to accept any illegal request of the complainant. It is submitted that the driving licence held by the driver was not found genuine for driving a Scorpio vehicle, so the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 1, 3 & 4 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C10 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. On the other hand, counsel for Ops no. 1, 3 & 4 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in accident on 1.5.2014 and the complainant got repaired his vehicle from the authorized dealer and paid Rs. 87,168/- vide invoice dated 29.5.2014. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 1.10.2014 on the ground that the driving license of the driver was not genuine. He submitted that the claim and driving license of the driver is genuine.
7. Learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that after getting the intimation about the damage to the vehicle, in the accident, the OP deputed surveyor. The surveyor vide his report dated 2.6.2014 Annexure R-4 assessed the loss at Rs. 65,678/-. He further submitted that the licence of the complainant was got verified by the OP and the driver Pardeep son of Vijay Kumar having the driving license valid for scooter, motor cycle and car only, while the vehicle in question is a Scorpio having capacity of 9 persons. Therefore, it was found that the driving licence of the driver of the complainant was not genuine. Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 1.10.2014 Annexure R-7. Learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the following judgment:-
I National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sarita Devi & others 2016 (1) CLT 558 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
8. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. The OP have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 1.10.2014 Annexure R-7, wherein the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground “Driving Licence of the driver is not genuine”. Now the counsel for the complainant has argued that the driving licence of the driver was valid for scooter, motor cycle and car only and it was not valid for the vehicle in question having the sitting capacity of 9 persons. The said plea of the OP is not part of the repudiation letter. From the arguments of the counsel for the OP, the ground of repudiation of the claim of the complainant as given in the letter dated 1.10.2014 is not justified. It has not been proved by the OP that the DL is not genuine nor the counsel for the OP convince us that this driving licence is not valid for driving the vehicle in question. Considering the facts of the case, we come to this conclusion that the OP has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his evidence that the driving licence is not genuine. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the OP. The OPs are directed to pay Rs. 65,678/- as claim for the loss assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay the interest @ 8 per cent per annum till the date of the awarded amount to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 21.06.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
