Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 554.
Instituted on : 13.11.2018.
Decided on : 07.09.2020.
Ishu(Age-28 years) s/o Sh. Umed Singh H.No.465/1, Shyam Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Unit Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No.644-45/19, Civil Road, Opp. Service Club, Rohtak(Haryana).
- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rider House, Plot No.136, Sector-44, Gurugram-122002(Haryana).
- Royal Sundaram General Insurance co. Ltd. Vishranthi Melaram Towers No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(OMR) Karapakkam, Chennai-600097.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Vipin Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HR-46D-8130 and said vehicle was fully insured with respondent for Rs.371637/- for a period of 29.03.2017 to 28.03.2018. On 04/05.03.2018, friend of complainant namely Mr. Ravi was driving the vehicle in village Rohna on Sampla Road and the vehicle suddenly started burning. He immediately called the fire brigade to stifle the burning flames. The employees of fire brigade blow out the fire but till then, vehicle was completely burnt. The driver of car also sustained injuries. The report of accident was got lodged vide GD No.025 dated 07.03.2018 The complainant has applied for getting the compensation of the policy as per his entitlement by submitting his claim alongwith other documents, which has been duly acknowledged by the respondents. The respondent obtained signatures of the complainant on a blank claim proposal form. The complainant regularly approached the respondent and requested them to pay the claim but the Insurance company vide their letter dated 24.07.2018 had repudiated the claim on misrepresentation of fact. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to disburse the claim amount of Rs.371637/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated due to misrepresentation of facts as to vehicle details. On receipt of claim intimation the respondent company appointed the surveyor and he assessed the loss on salvage basis for an amount of Rs.360137/-. However, it was brought to the respondents notice by the surveyor in his report that there was misrepresentation of facts as to the risk insured. The surveyor observed that the vehicle presented for inspection was different from that which was presented for assessment of loss. The following discrepancies were noted by the surveyor in his report:-
1. Alloy wheel fitted in the vehicle whereas the vehicle assessed for loss was having simple rims.
2. The Odometer reading at the time of pre-policy vehicle inspection was 30000 kms dated 29.03.2017 whereas the Odometer reading as on 24.04.2017 was 71378.2 kms.
3. As per vehicle history CNG Kit was faulty and was fitted with extra wiring fitment.
4. Overheating was observed in vehicle history.
5. Previous policy claim photos checked and there were some changes in VIR(Vehicle Inspection Report) photos like WS Glassgo, No monogram available in VIR photos.
The respondents after following the due procedure and taking into account the surveyor’s report had rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 24.07.2018 as there had been misrepresentation of facts as to the risk insured. Complainant is not entitled to any claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.11.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and thereafter failed to conclude its evidence. As such, evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 24.02.2020 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main objection of the respondent is that odometer reading at the time of pre-policy vehicle inspection was 30000 kms dated 29.03.2017 whereas the Odometer reading as on 24.04.2017 was 71378.2 kms. As per vehicle history CNG Kit was faulty and was fitted with extra wiring fitment and overheating was also observed in vehicle history etc. In support of these objections the respondent officials have not placed on record any document to prove that the vehicle has odometer reading 71378.2 kms on dated 24.04.2017. The respondent also failed to prove that CNG kit of vehicle in question was faulty and fitted with extra wiring fitment. Moreover respondents have not placed on record any service record of the vehicle. We have perused the survey report Ex.R4, in which at page no.4 under the head of remarks, these objections have been taken by the surveyor but to prove these contents, the surveyor failed to place on record any authenticated documents. The surveyor has assessed the loss of the vehicle after re-inspection on net of salvage basis as Rs.360170/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle was 371473/-. We have also carefully gone through all the relevant documents and the complaint of the complainant. In his complainant and affidavit, complainant has not mentioned the cause of accident as fire. But as per the supportive documents i.e. DDR Ex.C4 the detailed version of accident has been mentioned, as per which the car was hit by a truck, due to which fire broke out in the car. As per report of Fire Station Ex.C5 also, on receipt of a phone call, the fire was extinguished by the fire brigade on dated 05.03.2018 in the car no.HR46-D-8130. Hence it is proved that the fire was broke out in the car.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complainant is entitled for the claim amount on sub standard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.371637/- as shown in policy Ex.R1. As such we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.278728/-(Rupees two lac seventy eight thousand seven hundred and twenty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
07.09.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
