Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/510/2023

RAM SAROOP - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

RAJINDER CHAUHAN & RAKSHAK GUPTA ADVOCATES

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	510/2023
Date of Institution	:	23/10/2023
Date of Decision	:	07/10/2024

 

Ram Swaroop s/o Sh.Brij Lal r/o Village Bagguwala, P.O.Mandhala, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rakshak Gupta, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate for OP

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Ram Swaroop, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant is the registered owner of a Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.HP-12E 2896 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) as per registration certificate (Annexure C-2) and the same was got insured from the OP/insurer vide policy (Annexure C-1) valid w.e.f. 10.11.2020 to 09.11.2021 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).   On the late evening of 09.04.2021 in between 10:30 PM to 11.00PM, when the said car was being driven by Sh.Raj Kumar (a friend of the complainant’s son) an unidentified truck came from the wrong side and hit the subject car near Damuwala, P.O.Barotiwala as result of which except Sh.Raj Kumar all three other occupants namely Mukul, Aadarsh and Neeraj sustained multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, the aforesaid injured persons were taken to Baddi Hospital and on seeing the conditions of the injured persons, they were shifted to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.  Due to the negligence on the part of the police officials, the rapat/DDR (Annexure C-4) was recorded but without disclosing the name of the person who was driving the subject car. On 14.04.2021 i.e. about one week of the accident, the police officials again visited the hospital for recording the statement of the injured persons but the doctors had not allowed the statements to be recorded due to their critical condition. The information about the accident was already given to the agent of the OP namely Sh.Gulab Singh on 12.04.2021. The complainant after seeing the rapat (Annexure C-4) which did not disclose the name of the driver again approached the police and requested for recording his statement and on this another rapat/DDR  dated 06.06.2021 (Annexure C-5) was recorded.  However, the rapat/DDR  dated 06.06.2021 (Annexure C-5) could not be recorded earlier as the complainant was diagnosed with Covid-19 positive in the month of April, 2021 and after having home quarantine for about 22 days, he approached the police for recording his statement.  On 28.07.2021, the claim investigator deputed by the OP approached the complainant and collected the documents. Thereafter the complainant enquired about the status of his claim but in order to release the claim, the OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 05.10.2021.   In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. The OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, limitation and concealment of material facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was got insured by the complainant with the answering OP w.e.f. 10.11.2020 to 09.11.2021. It is further alleged that in fact as per the first information given to the police at the time of accident, there were only three persons present namely Mukul, Aadarsh and Neeraj and all were drunk at that time and they had sustained injuries in the said accident. It is further alleged that  Sh.Raj Kumar was not present in the car and his name has been wrongly introduced as driver of the subject car later on by the complainant by getting the DDR recorded. Besides this, the aforesaid three persons had consumed alcohol and the said fact was also admitted by Sh.Raj Kumar in his statement (Annexure OP-3).  As the subject car was not being driven by Sh.Raj Kumar at the time of the accident, the complainant has lodged a false claim with the OP and the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, as is also evident from the copy of RC (Annexure C-2) and the same was got insured by him from the OP vide subject policy, which was valid w.e.f. 10.11.2020 to 09.11.2021, as is also evident from the copy of policy (Annexure C-1) and the subject car met with accident on the relevant date, time and place as is also evident from the copies of the rapat/DDR (Annexure C-4 & C-5) and in the said accident, three occupants of the car namely Mukul, Aadarsh and Neeraj sustained multiple injuries and immediately after the accident they were taken to Baddi Hospital from where they were shifted to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  at the time of accident, the subject car was being driven by Sh.Raj Kumar and he was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the OP has wrongly not settled the claim of the complainant, as is the case of the complainant or if the subject car was being driven by one of the injured occupants of the car who was not possessing the valid driving licence and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed,  as is the defence of the OP.
   2. As per the case of the complainant, the subject car was being driven by Sh.Raj Kumar at the time of the accident whose name could not be recorded by the police while recording the rapat/DDR (Annexure C-4).  However in the subsequent DDR/Rapat (Annexure C-5) the factum of the name of the driver has been incorporated which was recorded at the instance of the complainant after about two months but he has given the reason that since he had suffered from covid-19 and was home quarantined as a result of which he could not report the said fact to the police earlier.  The aforesaid rapat/DDR has been proved on record in accordance with law and the same has not been rebutted by the OP by any other cogent evidence, hence the aforesaid rapat cannot be ignored for the simple reason that the same was got recorded by the complainant after a delay of about two months. Moreover when the investigator deputed by the OP has also recorded Annexure OP-3 i.e. the statement of Sh.Raj Kumar and the same has also been relied upon by the OP in which Sh.Raj Kumar has stated that at the time of accident, he was driving the said subject car. It is thus stand proved on record that at the relevant date, time and place the subject car was being driven by Sh.Raj Kumar who was possessing a valid driving licence, the copy of which is Annexure C-3 and not by one of the injured, as is the defence of the OP.
   3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OP/insurer.
   4. Now coming to the quantum of amount, though the complainant has claimed a sum of ₹4,54,587.12 as per the estimate  (Annexure C-6) whereas the subject vehicle is insured for an IDV of ₹1.35 lakhs and as such the complainant cannot be held entitled to the repairs charges which more than the IDV of the subject vehicle, it is safe to hold that the complainant is entitled to the IDV of the vehicle i.e. ₹1.35 lakhs only along with the interest and compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-
   1. to pay the IDV of the subject vehicle i.e. ₹1,35,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 05.10.2021 onwards. The wreck/salvage of the subject vehicle shall, however, be retained and disposed of by the OP/insurer at their own.
   2. to pay ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
5. This order be complied with by OP, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

07/10/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member

c