Haryana

Ambala

CC/318/2012

BRIJ PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

VIJESH SHARMA

28 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                    Complaint Case No.   : 318 of 2012

          Date of Institution      : 26.11.2012

                        Date of Decision        : 28.01.2016

Brij Pal Singh son of Shri Karan Singh, resident of village and Post Office-Samlehri, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                      ……Complainant.               

                                                                                                 Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional

Office, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                                                                  ……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Dhanajnay Dhar, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Adv. for OP.

ORDER.

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he got his vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra Logan bearing Chasis No.MA16SRFJHAZG14601, Engine No.D047215, Model 2010 and having Regn. No. HR54-A-0535 insured from OP comprehensively vide policy No.11220031P000866321 (cover note no.886058)  effective from 20.08.2010 to 19.08.2011. The said vehicle met with an accident in November 2010. Immediately  after the accident, he informed  the OP  and  as per their advice got prepared estimate of loss/damage caused to the vehicle  from Jaya Motor, Ambala Cantt, who gave an estimate of Rs.2.00 lacs which was  submitted to the OP requesting them to release compensation  enabling him  to get repaired the vehicle but the Op failed to do the needful and vehicle remained parked there for about 3-4 months. Thereafter, the OP directed the complainant to take the damaged vehicle to P.P. Motors, Karnal and get an estimate from the said dealer.  The dealer at Karnal gave an estimate of Rs.3.25 lacs and the surveyor of OP prepared a report regarding damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant as per requirement of OP again deposited estimate issued by the said dealer, copy of DL, R.C and insurance cover-note/policy with the OP but even then the OP failed to release the claim and because of that  the vehicle parked within the premises of P.P. Motors, Karnal at the charge of Rs.200/- per day. Legal notice dated 12.11.2011 was also served upon the OP but OP did not release the claim. Consequently, a complaint was filed before this Forum for settlement of the claim and the OP filed written statement based on false facts and requested for again assessing the report of the damaged vehicle which was got again assessed but even then the OP did  not make payment of the loss suffered by the complainant due to damage of vehicle in the accident and pointed out that FIR and other particulars have not been supplied by the complainant to the OP and  thus during the pendency of the above complaint, the complainant again supplied copy of relevant documents in compliance of letter dated 17.10.2011. Thereafter, the complaint filed by the complainant was disposed  of by the Forum vide order dated 07.06.2012, the concluding para of which is reproduced as under:-

“Keeping in view the above discussed facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the opinion that now the complainant has submitted the reply to all the queries raised by the OP in letter dated 17.10.2011 so the OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order”.

                        But instead of settling the claim of complainant, OP  went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula wherein also OP was directed to settle the claim of complainant subject to further time of two months from today vide order dated 03.08.2012. Thereafter, OP issued a letter dated 28.08.2012 mentioning therein  that since complainant has  not cooperated them and  the desired documents, etc. were not supplied within time, as such, his claim is not payable  and  thus Op wrongly repudiated the claim of the OP vide letter dated 28.08.2012.  However, a notice dated 12.09.2012 was served upon the Ops but despite that they failed to settle the claim of complainant.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer clause has  been preferred by the complainant.  

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, concealment of true facts, no cause of action and no jurisdiction etc.  On merits, it has been admitted that the  vehicle of the complainant was insured with them against the IDV (insured declared value) of Rs.5,36,750/- and for assessing the loss to the accidental vehicle in question, Er. Rajesh Wadhawan was immediately deputed as surveyor who visited the workshop of M/s Jaya Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ambala Cantt and thereafter  to M/s P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. at Karnal and gave fresh estimate of repair from the said workshop. The surveyor submitted his detailed report dated 26.07.2011 whereby he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,26,028/- subject to approval of claim by  the competent authority. Thereafter, another surveyor Mr. Gurjinder P. Singh was deputed to re-inspect the car in question who submitted his report dated 26.09.2011 whereby facts about a different registration number came to light.  It was found that the car in question was shown to be having registration number as HR-45-A-0535 in place of HR-54-A-0535 affixed on the said car.  After scrutinizing and elaborating the whole facts, the complainant was asked to clarify this ambiguity and also asked to provide a copy of FIR since one death had taken place in the accident as stated by the complainant to the surveyor and in claim form. But the complainant failed to comply with the formalities and also failed to explain the quarry about the late registration of the vehicle in question and about the registration number affixed upon the said vehicle at the time of final inspection as HR-45-A-0535 and also failed to provide copy of FIR or even particulars thereof, resultantly, the answering OP was compelled to close the claim file of the complainant as no claim.  It is denied that  the complainant completed  all the formalities for the purpose of final disposal of his claim. As already submitted, the answering Op requested the complainant time and again to complete the formalities required to finalize of his claim but inspite of the same the complainant did not come forward to complete the formalities and in these circumstances the claim of the complainant was filed as ‘No Claim’.  In the letter dated 17.10.2011, it was clear mentioned  that  he must complete the requirements within 7 days from receipt of the letter failing which his file shall be closed as ‘No Claim’ without giving any further notice.  As such, the complainant was given sufficient opportunity to submit the required documents and to clarify his position about the non-registration of his vehicle with any authority. But instead of  completing the formalities and clarifying the facts, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum which was decided vide order dated 07.06.2012 with the directions to settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days against which  an appeal was preferred by the answering OP before the Hon’ble State Commission which was decided vide order dated 03.08.2012 whereby the order of the Forum was rectified with the direction to reconsider the  claim of complainant afresh within 60 days.  Accordingly, the said claim of the complainant was again considered afresh by the competent authority but due to violation of the Motor  Vehicle Act and terms of insurance policy and for not supplying  the requisite information  and documents, the claim of the complainant was finally repudiated by the competent authority and informed  the complainant vide letter dated 28.08.2012.   As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to Annexure C-12 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavits of Er. Rajesh Wadhawan, Surveyor and Sh.Ajay Sareen, Assistant Manager as Annexures RW1/A & RW1/B  respectively alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. It is an admitted fact on record that previously, the present dispute was decided by our Predecessors vide order dated 07.06.2012 whereby OP was directed to settle the claim of complainant within thirty days from the date of order since the complainant has submitted reply to all the querries raised by the OP in letter dated 17.10.2011.  But  the OP Insurance company preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 03.08.2012 dismissed the appeal in limini, however, further time of two months from the date of order was granted to the appellant-Op insurance company to consider the claim in compliance of order passed by the District Forum but OP insurance company instead of  settling the claim, again repudiated the same on the same grounds as raised in letter dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure R-3).

5.                 At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP-company on 14.11.2010 i.e. the date of accident. Admittedly, after the accident, Er. Rajesh Wadhawan, surveyor was appointed by the OP company to inspect the damaged vehicle and to access the loss caused to it and the surveyor submitted his report dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure R-8) assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,26,028.61p. Thereafter, OP issued letter dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure R-3) addressed to the complainant requisiting the following documents and reply of some queries which is  reproduced as under:-

1. As per claim form filled by you, the accident was reported to police at P.S. Saha and an occupant Sh. Nirmal Singh had died. Please submit us copy of FIR.  Moreover, you have mentioned date and time of accident as 13.11.2010 at 11.30 P.M. In Claim Form?
2. Your vehicle was registered on 25.11.2010 whereas the validity of Temp. registration No.HR99EQ(T)2242 expired on 19.09.2010. Please give reasons for delay in registration of vehicle.
3. As per photographic evidence in Re-inspection report of Sh. Gurjinder Singh, surveyor, the registration number of your vehicle is HR45-A-0535. Kindly reply.”

                   In reply to the aforesaid queries, the complainant had tendered certified copy of his affidavit (taken on record as Annexure C-Y)  which was earlier submitted by him in previous complaint case No.391 of 2011, as specifically mentioned in para no.5 of judgment dated 07.06.2012 (Annexure C-7) passed by District Forum, Ambala relating to the said dispute whereby the District Forum, Ambala was pleased to conclude that the complainant has replied all the queries raised by the OP in letter dated 17.10.2011, so the OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of order but the OP instead of settling the same, repudiated it  again vide letter dated 28.08.2012 (Annexure R-1) which is neither legal nor justified in the eyes of law.

6.                Now as per letter dated 28.08.2012 addressed to complainant, OP has repudiated the insurance claim of complainant on  two  grounds detailed as under:-

(i)      You were not having valid R.C. of the vehicle at the time of accident on 13.11.2010.

(ii)     You have told the spot Surveyor that a DDR/FIR is lodged with P.S. Saha but you have not provided us the same.

                   In this regard,  certified copy of  affidavit (Annexure C-Y) already tendered by the complainant in previous case has been placed on record by the complainant deposing that No FIR/DDR was registered with the police  relating to the accident in question which happened on 13.11.2010 at about 11.30 P.M.  and due to unavoidable circumstances and busy schedule, he could not get his vehicle registered in time, however, copy of R.C. Annexure C-1 regarding registration of vehicle in November 2010 has been placed on record.

7.                After going through the registration record of the vehicle in question (Annexure C-1 & R-9 i.e. R.C. tendered by both the parties), it emerges that though the vehicle has been registered on 25.11.2010 but the same is w.e.f. 20.08.2010 by charging late fee by the Registering Authority  as the validity of vehicle is upto 19.08.2025 i.e. for 15 years.  Thus, it is mere irregularity and not the illegality for which the complainant has already been penalized by Registering Authority by charging late fee etc.  Further, the complainant has given excuse in the affidavit that due to unavoidable circumstances & busy schedule, he could not get registered his vehicle which  has been duly accepted by this Forum &  Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 07.06.2012 & 03.08.2012 respectively passed in the previous complaint. Besides it, regarding second query of FIR, complainant has also deposed that the accident in question has never been reported to the police and as such there is no any FIR/DDR in this  regard. Moreover, for settling the claim by OP, lodging of FIR/DDR is not a precondition or mandatory requirement. Further, as per survey report of Er. Rajesh Wadhawan (Annexure R-8), damage caused to vehicle of complainant bearing registration No.HR54A-0535 and having Engine No.D047215, Chasis No.MAILSRFJHAZG14601 is worked out to the tune of Rs.2,26,028.61NP subject to re-inspection but no any report of  re-inspection, if any, by Gurjinder Singh, Surveyor has been placed on file by the OP.  Hence we have no option except to believe the report of Ist Surveyor, Er. Rajesh Wadhawan.

                   In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the confirmed view that the Op has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP-Insurance Company is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of the order:-

1. To release to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,26,028.61NP alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization after making statutory deductions, if any, as per compulsorily deductible clause as per terms of insurance policy.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment &  mental agony.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of punitive damages.
4. And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for litigation charges including the counsel’s fee.

                                     

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

Announced:28.01.2016                                                             Sd/

                                                                                           (A.K. SARDANA)

                            PRESIDENT                 

 

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

                 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER.