Haryana

Kaithal

186/20

Gourav - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Pawan Garg

02 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.186/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.07.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:02.05.2023.

Gourav son of Subhash Chand, aged about 24 years, resident of House No.22, Ward No.5, behind Asha Ram Asharam, R.K.Colony, Kaithal, District Kaithal (Haryana) Aadhar Card No.3734-0534-3428.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Karnal Road, Opp. I.G. College, Kaithal-136027 (Haryana).

….Respondent.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Gourav-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased Honda Mobilio Vehicle bearing registration No.HR-08U-9736 from its owner Subhash Chand son of Sh. Dharam Pal, Village and P.O. Dohar in the year 2018.  The complainant got its RC transferred in his name and got insured the said vehicle with the OP vide policy No.1107053118P116068835 valid for the period w.e.f. 12.03.2019 to 11.03.2020 for the insured amount of Rs.7,50,000/-.  The case of complainant is that on 24.04.2019 at about 9.00 p.m. in the area of New Anaj Mandi, Kaithal the above-said vehicle met with an accident.  Intimation regarding accident was given to OP.  The matter was also reported with P.P. New Anaz Mandi, Kaithal well in time.  The surveyor inspected the spot and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.6,63,000/-.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents as required by the Op but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 30.04.2020.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondent appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent; that on receipt of intimation regarding accident, two surveyors were appointed by the OP and they have mentioned in their reports that the claim is not genuine.  Thereafter, Sh. T.P.Singh, Licensed Independent Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed to assess the loss, if any.  In his report dt. 12.08.2019 he has mentioned that damages do not relevant with the nature of accident.  As he found assessed loss on repairs basis exceeds 75% of IDV, hence, it was fit case for CTL.  He has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,63,000/- on “Net of salvage basis” without admitting the liability due to discrepancies.  As per his report, he has checked the history of vehicle in question and found that it has previously met with serious accident on 26.03.2017 and claim was settled on “Net of salvage basis” for Rs.5,35,000/- by Iffco-Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No.ITG/82261377.  But surprisingly, insured has not disclosed this very fact while taking insurance policy from the answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C23 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondent tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased Honda Mobilio Vehicle bearing registration No.HR-08U-9736 from its owner Subhash Chand son of Sh. Dharam Pal, Village and P.O. Dohar in the year 2018.  The complainant got its RC transferred in his name and got insured the said vehicle with the OP vide policy No.1107053118P116068835 valid for the period w.e.f. 12.03.2019 to 11.03.2020 for the insured amount of Rs.7,50,000/-.  It is further argued that on 24.04.2019 at about 9.00 p.m. in the area of New Anaj Mandi, Kaithal the above-said vehicle met with an accident.  Intimation regarding accident was given to OP.  The matter was also reported with P.P. New Anaz Mandi, Kaithal well in time.  It is further argued that the surveyor inspected the spot and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.6,63,000/-.  It is further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents as required by the Op but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 30.04.2020.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that on receipt of intimation regarding accident, earlier two surveyors namely Grover Associates, Licensed Independent Surveyor & Loss Assessor approved by IRDA and Sh. R.N.Sharma, Independent Investigator approved by IRDA were appointed by the OP and they have mentioned in their reports that the claim is not genuine.  Thereafter, final surveyor namely Sh. T.P.Singh, Licensed Independent Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed by the OP to assess the loss, if any.  In his report dt. 12.08.2019 he has mentioned that damages do not relevant with the nature of accident.  As he found assessed loss on repairs basis exceeds 75% of IDV, hence, it was fit case for CTL.  He has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,63,000/- on “Net of salvage basis” without admitting the liability due to discrepancies.  As per his report, he has checked the history of vehicle in question and found that it has previously met with serious accident on 26.03.2017 and claim was settled on “Net of salvage basis” for Rs.5,35,000/- by Iffco-Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No.ITG/82261377.  But surprisingly, insured has not disclosed this very fact while taking insurance policy from the OP.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The OP has repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 30.04.2020 as per Annexure-C9/R1 mainly on the ground that the said vehicle has previously been declared total loss in the year 2017 and that claim was settled on “Net of salvage basis” for Rs.5,35,000/- by the then insurer Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. in favour of Sh. Subhash Chand (father of Mr. Gourav).  The contention of ld. counsel for the OP is that the complainant had not disclosed this material fact while taking insurance from the OP.  To rebut the said contention of OP, ld. counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that Subhash Chand who had earlier settled the claim with Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., was some other person instead of father of complainant and the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from said Subhash Chand son of Dharam Pal.  He has drawn our attention towards the policy Annexure-C14 from which it is clear that Subhash Chand S/o Dharam Pal VPO Dohar, Distt. Kaithal had settled the claim with the Iffco-Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed on file copies of DL and pan card relating to father of complainant namely Subhash Chand, which are Mark-A and Mark-B on the file, from which it is clear that the father’s name of Subhash Chand is Sh. Bhag Singh.  So, from the above facts, it is clear that earlier the claim was settled by Subhash Chand S/o Dharam Pal instead of Subhash Chand s/o Sh. Bhag Singh.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not concealed any material facts from the OP while taking the policy in question from the OP rather the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op.

9.             Now the question arises before us that what amount of compensation, complainant is entitled for.  In the present case, the surveyor namely Sh. T.P.Singh & Company has assessed the net loss amounting to Rs.6,63,000/- as per his report mentioned at page No.4, which is  Annexure-R6 on the file.  So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the present complaint.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority cited in Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII, 2018(1) CLT page 508 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Insurance claim-Surveyor’s report-Held-That surveyors are appointed under the Insurance Act, 1938 and their reports are the basis for settling the insurance claim-To disregard the same-The complainant had not filed any objection to the surveyor’s report-Thus if there are no objections to the surveyor’s report-it is to be accepted-Appeal dismissed.  We also rely upon the authority cited in 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.    

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to pay the amount of Rs.6,63,000/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within 45 days from today.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall submit the salvage with the Ops and salvage will be the property of insurer.  The OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  However, it is made clear that if the OP is failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.6,63,000/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the said amount from the date of this order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.   

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.05.2023.                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),               (Suman Rana),

Member.                                   Member.                       Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.