Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 159.
Instituted on : 10.03.2022.
Decided on : 17.07.2023
Rohtash aged-51 years son of Sh. Gyani Ram R/o House No.231/12, Jagdish Colony, Hansi(Now at present resident of H.No.512A/34 Krishana Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited of the Insurance Ombudsman, S.C.O.No.101,102 & 103, 2nd Floor, Batra Building Sector-17D, Chandigarh-160017. Telephone No.0172-2706196/2706468Email Address:-bimalokpalchandigarh@cioins.co.in.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-9, First Floor, Sector-10 Panchkula-134109(above Central Bank of India).
- Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Private Limited 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sunil A.R of complainant in person.
Sh. Puneet Chahal Advocate for opposite party No 1 and 2.
Sh. Gaurav Arya, Advocate for opposite party no. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration no. HR-16U-5071 and same was insured with opposite parties vide policy no. 2311/64145698/00/000 and the same was valid from 24.07.2021 to 23.07.2022. On 23.11.2021, he visited the service centre at Jind for service of the abovesaid vehicle but the opposite parties did not provide the service by stating that the service could not be done now. The complainant was to go to Salasar on the same day and a pig baby came under the said vehicle due to which the radiator pipe was broken and coolant came out. The vehicle got overheated. Intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party by the complainant in time. The complainant spent a sum of Rs.29810/- on the repair of the said vehicle. Thereafter he approached the opposite parties and submitted the bill of the alleged amount. But the opposite parties illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant on the false grounds that the cause of loss, mentioned in the claim form is not consistent and does not tally with the damage on the vehicle. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.29810/-as repair charges of vehicle alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their reply has submitted that they had appointed an IRDA approved independent surveyor/investigator for survey and assessment of loss of car bearing no. HR-16U-5071. On perusal of the report submitted by the said surveyor and documents opposite parties observed that the damages are of old in nature and accumulated and manipulated. They intimate the complainant vide letter dated 28.01.2022 that “It has been observed that cause of loss, mentioned in the claim form, is not consistent and does not tally with the damages on the vehicle.” As such opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.01.2022. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Opposite party no. 3 appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that he is an insurance broking entity and mainly acts as a facilitator of motor insurance products offered by various insurance companies. After the facilitation by them, customers buy insurance as per their own will and pay insurance premium which goes to their selected Insurance Company only. It is specifically denied that the vehicle was insured with them. It is also denied that opposite party no. 3 provides car repair services to its customers. It is further denied that complainant approached opposite party no. 3 and submitted the bill of Rs.29,810/- for payment. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 02.11.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 15.03.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/2 and closed his evidence on dated 15.03.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, insurance of the vehicle of the complainant from opposite party mno.1 & 2 is not disputed. Opposite party No.3 is only a facilitator. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and he filed a claim of Rs.29810/- with the opposite parties but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No.1 & 2 vide their letter Ex.R1/Ex.C6 on the ground that : “It has been observed that cause of loss, mentioned in the claim form, is not consistent and does not tally with the damages on the vehicle.” But to prove this fact no authentic evidence has been placed on record by the opposite party no.1 & 2. Neither any survey report nor any technical/expert evidence has been placed on record to prove the fact that the damages on the vehicle does not match with the cause of loss mentioned in the claim form. Merely an assumption has been made by the opposite parties because to prove the same any authentic evidence is not placed on file. In fact, there are so many factors in an accident like place of accident, speed of vehicle, driving skill etc. which decides the nature of loss suffered in a vehicle. Hence without any authentic evidence it is not proved that the damages on the vehicle does not match with the cause of loss mentioned in the claim form. Hence the opposite party no.1 & 2 are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per the complaint, complainant has demanded Rs.29810/-. To prove the same he has placed on record bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 but the calculation of the same comes to Rs.29001/- say Rs.29000/-(rounded off). It is also observed that the depreciation waiver policy has been purchased by the complainant and against this policy, add on premium has been paid on account of depreciation waiver, engine protection, consumable items. Hence extra premium has been paid by the complainant to cover the above mentioned add-ons. As the policy is zero depreciation policy, hence the complainant is entitled for the full claim of Rs.29000/-.
6. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.29000/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.03.2022 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as 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:
17.07.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
