Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/20/2019

Ravi Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Madan Singh Verma

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.    

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.         114 of 2019          

                                                          Date of Institution:  12.04.2019

                                                          RBT Case No.         20/26.08.2019

                                                          Date of order:          03.04.2024          

 

Ravi Parkash son of Bhagwana, resident of village Naurangabad Jattan, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri

..Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No. EL-94,KLS Tower, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710, through its Director.
2. Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, 3^rd Floor, SCF-55, Sector-6, Main Market, Karnal, Haryana.

                                                                                ..Opposite party.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER    PROTECTION ACT

Before: -    Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Madan Singh Verma, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OPs.

O R D E R

1.                The complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) on the allegations that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle TATA LPK 2518 Truck bearing registration no. HR-84-7107. It is submitted that the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-84-7107 was insured with OP no.1 vide policy No. 2374/58309947/00/000 for the period w.e.f. 20.03.2018 to 19.03.2019 for sum insured of Rs. 30,00,000/-. It is also submitted that unfortunately, on 09.05.2018, the above said vehicle after loading according to its capacity was coming towards DHARAM KANTA and on the way near Kanana Hill, due to sudden blowing out of the tyre, the abovesaid truck unbalanced and fell down. Due to this accident, some part of the truck damaged. The information about the above said accident was given to the OP no.2. But OP no.2 clearly denied to pass the claim in illegal manner without inspecting the vehicle. The abovesaid vehicle is a commercial one and is on finance.  It is also submitted that due to non passing of claim by OPs, claimant suffered a huge business loss on daily basis and if it is continued, then he would not be able to pay  the installment to the finance company. In this accident there was no casualty except severe damage to the vehicle. It is also submitted that damaged vehicle was brought to Salegram Motors, S.H No. 17, Charkhi Dadri-Mahendergraph Road, Bus Stand VPO Ghasola, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri and a bill of Rs.4,70,271/- was handed over by the service centre which was paid by complainant. Despite of this, the complainant also suffered expenses on repair & Transportation to the tune of Rs. 2,03,477/- The complainant requested insurance company time and again to meet out the expenses of repair but to no avail. After that the complainant served a legal notice dated 11.03.2019 through his counsel Sh. Madan Singh Verma, Advocate to arrange the requisite payment but all in vain. The complainant was obsessed to get this damaged vehicle repaired out of his pocket in order to make his both ends meet and spent Rs. 6,73,748/- as repair and transportation charges of this damaged vehicle. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to release the claim amount but the officials of the opposite party did not release the claim amount on one pretext or the other.  This wrongful act and conduct of the opposite party has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OP to make the payment of Rs. 6,73,748/- alongwith interest and compensation

2.                          The OPs in written statement took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi and suppression of true and material facts. It is averred that  OPs have received intimation dated 10.05.2018 mentioning therein that the vehicle has met with an accident on 09.05.2018 when it was coming after load and one another vehicle came from opposite side but breaks were not  applied and to save the other vehicle the insured vehicle turned turtle. After receiving the intimation, the OPs have deputed Innovative Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor Delhi for spot survey and Eminent Solvserve Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd.  New Delhi for final survey. However, it is also averred that the surveyor and Loss Assessor, has assessed the loss for Rs.4,23,000/-. Before submitting the report surveyor had sent letters dated 13.06.2018 & 03.07.2018 requiring the documents. The officials of the OPs after going through the papers available on the file and taking into consideration the letters sent  and due application of mind has repudiated the claim on 05.03.2019 on the following grounds:-

          In the spot survey report and the photographs of the spot of accident, it is observed that the subject vehicle was being used in a very uneven terrain. Under these circumstances, operating of the Jack in a loaded condition will inevitably invite the subject loss, as the vehicle is bound to get disbalance in such conditions.

          According to the instructions manual from the manufacturer to the users of the subject vehicles also, there are certain dos and don’ts. Under these instructions, it is advised ‘not to tip on uneven ground and not to drive with raised body.

There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OPs and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and evidence of the complainant was closed vide order dt.23.02.2021.

4.                The learned counsel for the OP tendered the documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 and evidence of the OPs was closed vide order dt. 23.08.2021.

                   The OP has placed on record spot inspection report Annexure R3 dt. 01.06.2018 of M/s Innovative Insurance Surveyors  and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. wherein damage of  Front Suspension, chassis Frame, Load Body, Jack Assembly, Misc Items have been mentioned. However, the repairing cost of the damaged items has not been mentioned in the report. The OP has also placed on record Survey Report Final (Annexure R4) as prepared by M/s Eminent Solverve Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. wherein replacement cost and GST thereon has been given at Rs. 4,52,289.73/-. After providing depreciation  on some applicable parts, the depreciated part cost including taxes and other levies has been given at Rs. 4,40,010.49/-. However in the table given at the end of the report liability of the insurance company has been given at Rs.4,23,000/-.

 5.               We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record thoroughly and carefully.

6.                It is an admitted fact of the parties that the vehicle TATA LPK 2518 Truck bearing registration No. HR- 84-7107 of complainant was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy (Ex.C3/Annexure R1). The said vehicle was damaged in an accident on 09.05.2018 during the validity of insurance policy. We have observed that the damaged vehicle was got repaired by the complainant and paid cost of repairing from his own sources as claim was approved by the OP. The counsel for the complainant has placed on record Tax invoice No. ISLEBH1819002614 dt. 01.08.2018 issued by M/s Salegram Motors (an authorized service station of TATA MOTORS), S.H No. 17, Charkhi Dadri-Mahendergraph Road, Bus Stand VPO Ghasola, Tehsil &Distt. Charkhi Dadri (Ex-C-11) for total sum of Rs.4,70,271/- on account of repair charges incurred for vehicle  in question. The complainant has also  placed on record various bills (Ex.C-4 to Ex.C10) for repair and other transportation charges total amounting to Rs.2,03,477/-. The total cost of repairing works out to Rs. 6,73,748/- which was paid by the complainant. As regards payment of other charges claimed by the complainant for an aggregate amount of Rs. 2,03,477/-, we find that  the same have not been supported by an technical expert report and its justification of requirement of additional amount to be incurred over and above the invoice value for repairing of the damaged vehicle in authorized service centre of the TATA Company particularly when the vehicle was in possession  of the service centre from 20.05.2018 to 01.08.2018. However, reimbursement of expenditure to the extent of Rs. 9,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 4,000/-)(Ex.C6 & Ex.C7) may be considered for bringing the damaged vehicle  from place of accident to service centre. It has been observed that the counsel for the OPs has placed on record survey report Annexure R-4 whereby the surveyor of the OPs has assessed Repair cost at Rs.4,52,289.73/- with GST and Rs. 4,40,010.49 after providing depreciation on certain parts. The surveyor report is an authentic document.  In this regard we are relying upon  the authority 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be  dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. The OPs should have given the amount of Rs. 4,40,010.49/- to the complainant immediately. Howver the OP has repudiated the claim on vague ground under garb of condition no.5 of the insurance policy which stating that the insured shall take all reasonable step to safeguard the vehicle which not tenable. Condition no.5 has been invoked with a specific purpose of denial of the claim. In view of the authority as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP is liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

7.           In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs. 4,40,010.49/- (rounded to Rs. 4,40,010/-) the loss assessed by the surveyor of the OPs  and Rs. 9,000/- incurred for carriage the damaged vehicle from place of accident to service centre alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 05.03.2019 till its realization.

8.                The OPs is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses.

9.           The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP for the delayed period.

10.          Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.