Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 160.
Instituted on : 17.04.2018.
Decided on : 01.07.2019.
Ms. Deepika age 36 years, D/o Sh. Umed Singh Ranga R/o H.No.2655, Housing Board, Sector-3, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. 323/21, 2nd Floor, Jawahar Market, Opposite D-Park, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.P.K.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.D.N.Singhal, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle car bearing no.HR-12AE-2551 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.TUI/11298278 valid from 03.09.2017 to 02.09.2018. That on 09.12.2017, a cow came in front of the car and to save the cow, the car struck on the divider and grill of the pole situated on the divider. That in the next morning on 10.12.2017, the complainant gave intimation in this regard to the insurance company. The insurance company appointed its surveyor, who conducted the spot survey and get the signatures of complainant on many blank claim forms. Thereafter, the said vehicle was brought at Rohtak and was parked in the Toyota agency as suggested by the surveyor. That complainant spent more than Rs.43173/- on the repair of the vehicle. That complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite party for getting the claim of vehicle but the opposite party on relying upon the report/opinion of the surveyor repudiated the claim of complainant vide repudiation letter dated 16.12.2018 on the ground that cause of accident is different. That the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.43173/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant has mischievously misrepresented the case and withheld the factual cause, place and date of accident. This case irrespective of quantum of loss needs detailed investigations, evidences and cross examination of concerned witnesses and it is a fit case of only civil suit. That the date of accident reported as 09.12.2017 is itself contradictory with complainant’s own documents as well as Surveyor’s report dated 20.12.2017. That the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated after considering the various documents including the surveyor’s report. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/C, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence on dated 12.03.2019.
5. Written arguments filed by ld. counsel for the opposite party. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, there is a major contradiction regarding the date of accident. As per the complainant, the vehicle met with an accident on 09.12.2017 at about 3/3.30 PM. On the other hand, as per the respondent, the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 20.12.2017 and as per the respondent, this fact has been mentioned by the complainant in her claim form submitted by her before the respondent officials. We have perused all the documents placed on record by the parties. The complainant placed on record copy of registration of the vehicle Ex.C1, driving license of driver Jyoti Ex.C2, insurance policy Ex.C3, bill issued by Toyota Satyam Ex.C4, no claim letter dated 20.02.2018 Ex.C5, copy of register Ex.C6 & Ex.C7 alongwith affidavit of complainant. On the other hand, respondent officials have placed on record affidavit of Deputy Manager of respondent insurance company Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Manoj Kumar Agnihotri Investigator Ex.RW1/B, affidavit of Surveyor and loss assessor Sh. Ajmer Singh Ahlawat Ex.RW1/C. Respondent has also placed on record copy of emails Ex.R1, claim intimation Ex.R2, copy of claim form Ex.R3, copy of register Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, survey report prepared by Sh. Ajmer Singh Ex.R6, statement made by the complainant before the investigating agency Ex.R8 and photocopy of affidavit of complainant as Ex.R9 and detail copy of policy Ex.R10.
7. As per the complainant, the accident had taken place on 09.12.2017. Thereafter, she parked her vehicle for repair in Satyam Toyota on dated 11.12.2017 which is well proved through Ex.C7. The respondent also investigated the matter and they also placed on record photocopy of register as Ex.R4 & Ex.R5. As per Ex.R4, the vehicle was parked at Satyam Toyota on 11.12.2017 and as per Ex.R5, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 10.02.2018. Regarding this fact both the parties placed on record documents and it is established that the vehicle was parked after the accident in Satyam Toyota on 11.12.2017. Now as per respondent the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 20.12.2017 and this fact has been mentioned in the claim form. Perusal of the claim form Ex.R3 shows that in the column no.5 of accident, in which the detail of accident has been mentioned, the handwriting of this column is different from other column of the claim form which can be seen by naked eyes. So it seems that this column was filled lateron. Moreover, the respondent officials, during his investigation recorded the statement of Jyoti which is Ex.R7. As per this statement also, the accident had taken place on 09.12.2017. In the present case the respondent officials also placed on record a photocopy of affidavit Ex.R9 and through this affidavit, respondent tried to prove that accident had taken place on 20.12.2017. In the present case the policy was issued for the period for one year i.e. from 03.09.2017 to 02.09.2018 and the accident had taken place in the month of December 2017. Meaning thereby, the accident taken place during the policy period. The vehicle of the complainant was repaired in the authorized service station. The vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor Sh. Ajmer Singh Ahlawat and he submitted his report on 12.02.2018 and as per this report he visited in the workshop and checked the vehicle and also took necessary photographs from the spot and in this report it has also been mentioned that the damages were fresh in nature but not related with the cause of accident mentioned in the claim form. Meaning thereby some different fact has been mentioned in the claim form which is well proved after the bare perusal of column no.5 which was written in some different handwriting. The surveyor has not mentioned anywhere that the damages are false and fabricated but he also mentioned that as per his opinion, the vehicle met with an accident at another place by any vehicle. After perusal of the surveyor report, it is established that accident took place and the complainant has suffered damages in her vehicle. So she is entitled for the damages suffered by her in her vehicle. As per the affidavit Ex.RW1/A, the surveyor has submitted his report with the loss assessment of Rs.31984/-. As such, complainant is entitle for the alleged claim amount.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.31984/-(Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred eighty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.04.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.07.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
