Punjab

Sangrur

CC/503/2017

Shashi Bhushan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Yogesh Gupta

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    503

                                                Instituted on:      27.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.02.2018

 

 

Shashi Bhushan son of Naresh Kumar, resident of Ward No.7, Khanauri Mandi, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai through its Managing Director.

2.             United India Insurance Company, Peeranwala Gate Branch, Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.             M/s. Pioneer Toyota through its Prop. Plot No.C-154-156, Focal Point, Patiala.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Mahesh Satija, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Shashi Bhushn, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs number 1 and 2 by getting insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-0462 vide cover note number 1117023116N100186769 for the period from 24.8.2016 to 23.8.2017 by paying the requisite premium.  The case of the complainant is that in the month of November, 2016, the car of the complainant met with an accident and, as such, the complainant gave intimation to the OP and the OP appointed surveyor, who after inspection of the vehicle asked the complainant to get his car repaired from Pioneer Toyota and estimate of Rs.1,10,655/- was given and as such the complainant got repaired his car from Pioneer Toyota and the payment of Rs.1,10,655/- was raised vide invoice number TAX16-13634 dated 9.11.2016 and the OP number 3 took Rs.4000/- and delivered the car to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that on 9.6.2017, the complainant went to the OP number 3 for the servicing of the vehicle in question, but the OP number 3 refused to deliver the car on the ground that the insurance company has refused to pay the claim. As such, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- to the OP number 3 on 11.8.2017on account of repair charges of the car and took the delivery of the car.  As such, the complainant has averred that during that period, the complainant was deprived from using the vehicle in question. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant also filed a complaint earlier, which was dismissed in default on 6.7.2017.  Though the complainant approached the Ops so many times for settlement of the claim,  but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,05,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

2.             In the written reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the Ops number 1 and 2  under the policy in question for Rs.5,87,000/-. It is admitted fact that after receipt of the intimation from the complainant on 17.10.2016 regarding the accident of the vehicle, as such, the Ops appointed Shri S.P.J. Singh Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.99,000/- as net loss after deducting Rs.3115/- on account of policy clause and salvage value and submitted his report dated 15.11.2016.  It is stated further that in the proposal form the complainant claimed no claim bonus wrongly whereas the earlier insured i.e. SBI General Insurance has reported that the complainant had lodged one claim with it. As such, it is averred that the complainant has wrongly claimed no claim bonus of 20%, as such, the complaint is said to be wrong and without any basis.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action for the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant brought the vehicle in question in accidental condition to OP number 3 for the purpose of repairs in the month of November, 2016 and the car was properly attended and got repaired by the technical and qualified persons and delivered thereafter to the complainant after receiving the payment on account of fully satisfied and the complaint is said to be false and without any basis.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 affidavit and documents and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-0462 from the OP number 2 vide policy number 1117023116N100186769 for the period from 24.8.2016 to 23.8.2017 on comprehensive basis by paying the requisite premium of Rs.9912/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.Ex.OP1&2/4.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident and damaged badly and suffered huge loss as the vehicle in question met with an accident and it is not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP number 2 about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents, the OPs number 1 and 2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had earlier lodged the claim with the earlier insurer i.e. SBI General Insurance Company and has got insured the vehicle from the Ops number 1 and 2 by claiming no claim bonus, as such he is not entitled to get any claim.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it was the duty of the Ops number 1 an 2 to get the matter regarding no claim bonus verified from the previous insurer within a period of 21 days of the issuance of the insurance cover note and it is not the stage to deny the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant wrongly claimed no claim bonus at the time of getting the insurance of the vehicle.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 and 2 have not produced iota of evidence on record to show that how much amount of the claim was paid to the complainant nor there is any documentary evidence on record to prove this fact.     There is nothing produced on record by the Ops that how much claim amount was settled/paid to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have miserably failed to establish its case that the complainant had earlier claimed any claim amount and further claimed wrongly no claim bonus.  If assuming that the complainant had earlier claimed no claim bonus wrongly, then it is not fair on the part of the Ops number 1 and 2 to repudiate the claim in toto and the claim should be paid after deducting 20% of the claim amount.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited United India Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Jindal Poly Buttons Limited 2017(2) CPR 553 (NC), wherein in the similar circumstances of the case, the claim was allowed to be paid after deduction of 20% of the claim amount.

 

7.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. In the present case, the surveyor has assessed the claim amount to the tune of Rs.99,000/- and as such we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs number 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount after deduction of 20% of Rs.99,000/- which comes to Rs.79,200/-.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.79,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.09.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OPs number 1 and 2 within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.  

                Pronounced.

                February 22, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member