Haryana

Sonipat

CC/8/2016

Shree Bhagwan S/o Prabhu Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

K.C. Dalal

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.08 of 2016

Instituted on: 05.01.2016                 

Date of order: 27.04.2016

 

Shree Bhagwan son of Prabhu Singh, r/o H.No.147, VPO Garhi Sisana,, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.           Versus

1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 323/21, Delhi road, Jawahar market, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.

2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi road, upon Union Bank of India, Sonepat through its Divisional Branch Manager.

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Shri KC Dalal Adv. for complainant.

          Shri RS Malik, Adv. for respondents.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondents  alleging therein that he took the loan from Magna Finance Corp. Ltd. for the purchase of LMV Car which was got registered vide registration no.HR-79-3134 and the said car was got insured with the respondents for the period 18.7.2015 to 17.7.2016 and unfortunately on 31.8.2015 the said car has met with an accident and was badly damaged.  The intimation regarding the said accident was given to the respondent on 8.9.2015.  Further intimation regarding the said accident was given to Shri VS Jhakhar Assistant Manager of the respondent.  On intimation of the accident, the surveyor was deputed and all the documents of the said vehicle were obtained by the said surveyor.  The complainant got repaired the said vehicle from Magma Motors, Murthal and has paid Rs.87666/- on account of repair of the car in question.  The complainant has submitted the claim and has completed all the formalities of the respondents, but till date, the respondents have not paid even a single penny to th3e complainant and rather they have sent the repudiation letter dated 3.11.2015 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal and  that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the claim of the complainant was not in order as per terms and conditions of the policy.  Notice should have been given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of accident.  The accident took place on 31.8.2015 and the intimation was given to the respondent on 8.9.2015 i.e. after a delay of eight days which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated by the respondents on the ground that intimation is given delayed by 8 days.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the complainant no.1 in person and learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is legal and justified as there was delay of 8 days in giving intimation regarding the accident by the complainant to the respondents. The accident took place on 31.8.2015 and the intimation was given to the respondent on 8.9.2015 i.e. after a delay of eight days which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         Now the question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground of 8 days delayed intimation by the complainant is legal or it is totally unjustified.

         In the present case, the complainant has placed on record the document Annexure C5.   The perusal of this document shows that the policy was issued by the respondents and it bears the stamp mark and name of VS Jakhar, Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and on this document, mobile number and office telephone number is also printed.

         Further the complainant has placed on record the document Annexure C10 vide which, some information were sought by the complainant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from Assistant General (Admn) office of General Manager, Telecom Department, Rohtak.

         As per this report, the complainant has informed Shri VS Jakhar Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Company Rohtak regarding the accident on the same day i.e. on 31.8.2015 at about 5.30 pm and this telephonic call was for 116 second. Similarly on 3.9.2015. Again telephonic call was made by the complainant to the said Shri VS Jakhar and this telephone call was for 234 second.  Similarly, on 4.9.2015 the complainant made a telephone call twice to the said Shri VS Jakhar and this time telephone call was for 101 and 132 second.  Further the complainant has made the telephone call to Shri VS Jakhar on 7.9.2015 and this time telephonic call was for 29 and 176 second.

         This Forum failed to understand when the complainant was in constant touch with Shri VS Jakhar Assistant Manager of the insurance company, then how the respondent insurance company can take such a lame excuse that there was 8 days delay on the part of the complainant in giving intimation to the respondents regarding the accident and thus, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.

         In our view, the respondents have wrongly, illegally and to cause unnecessary harassment to the complainant has repudiating his legal and genuine claim and the action taken by the respondents in the matter of the complainant cannot be said to be legal or justified in any manner.

         In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he has incurred Rs.87666/- on the repair of his car and has also paid an amount of Rs.4047/- to the surveyor of the insurance company as per Annexure C7.

         In this way, it is crystal clear that the survey of the damaged car was conducted by the surveyor and the survey report was prepared by the surveyor Sugam Tech Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor and as per Annexure C7, the said surveyor has charged Rs.4047/- as surveyor fees on 5.10.2015.

         But it is very sorry state of affairs that in the written statement and affidavit filed by the respondent insurance company, it has not been mentioned as to how much assessment was made by the surveyor regarding the damaged vehicle.  So, we are unable to disbelieve the version of the complainant. 

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any amount and if so, to what amount the complainant is legally entitled to?

         As per the bills, the complainant has incurred Rs.87666/- on the repair of his vehicle and also has paid the amount of Rs.4047/- to the surveyor. 

         The vehicle of the complainant is 2013 model and the accident has occurred on 31.8.2015.  So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the amount of Rs.7666/- is deducted on account of depreciation, regarding plastic parts and less excess policy clause and after deducting this amount from Rs.87666/-, the complainant’s entitlement comes to Rs.80,000/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.4047/- which the complainant has paid to the surveyor as surveyor fees and this amount is directed to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

(Prabha Wati)                (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF SNP       President, DCDRF Sonepat

ANNOUNCED: 27.04.2016