District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. .299/2022.
Date of Institution:06.06.2022.
Date of Order:18/7/2023
Jagat Singh S/o Yaad Ram R/o 185, Village Pali Block 5, Faridabad, Haryana – 121004.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Situated at SCO-9, First floor, Above Central Bank of India, Sector-10, Panchkula – 134106 Haryana.
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Zonal Office Assotech One, C-20/1a, 2nd floor, Near Labour Chowk, Noida, Sector-62, Noida – 201309.
3. Dhingra Trucking Pvt. Ltd. Rewari, Bharat Benz authorized Dealer Plot No.22, Industrial Area, Dharuh, Rewari – 123106, Haryana.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Imran Khan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nitish Kumar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Sh. Pramjeet Singh, AR on behalf of opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased the truck No. HR38W4307 on 03.07.2017 for daily to daily earning and livelihood. After purchasing the truck No. HR38W4307 got it insured from the insurance company and insurance of the complainant never got discontinued. In 2019 complainant was having a valid and genuine insurance of his vehicle from the opposite party No1 Company which was valid from 15.6.2018 to 14.6.2019. On 22.5.2019 at around 12.10p.m. the complainant truck got accident on Gohana modh with the creta car and the truck of the complainant got damaged. The complainant was having the genuine documents of the truck and submitted all the documents R.C., insurance, driving licence of the driver to the police. The complainant got the superdari of the vehicle from the Hon’ble court of Shri Vineet CJM, Nuh vide order dated 29.5.2019 and the complainant hired and crane on rent from the Tabbi crane service to toe the accidental vehicle to the workshop for the repairing of the vehicle. The crane took 4500/-. Tow the complainant vehicle from the police station to the workshop Bharat Benz Dhingra trucking Pvt. Ltd.. The opposite party did the survey of the vehicle and full assurance was given by the opposite party that they would clear the claim after the truck would got fully repaired. The truck got repaired but the opposite party refused the complainant that they would not make the payment and started making excuses and linger on the claim of the complainant. The total amount of the repaired vehicle was 444,706/- was generated vide invoice No. JIN07022B190516 and was paid to the opposite party No.3 after arranging the huge amount from his relatives and friends. The complainant requested the opposite party that they were having the valid insurance policy than why they were not clearing the claim amount but opposite party told that his senior officials had gone out of station now he clear the
outstanding amount of 444,706/- from his own fund and the employee of the opposite party gave full assurance that they would clear the clam amount afterwards. The opposite party approached the opposite party office regularly but the employee of the opposite party company intentionally deliberately with tricks always made some excuses and always told complainant to visit the office after some days. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay the bill amount of Rs.444,706 in favour of the complainant with 24% p.a.
b) pay the amount of 4500 given to the Tabbi crane service in favour of complainant with the 24% p.a.
b) pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 15,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased the truck bearing NO. HR38W4307. It was submitted to the extent that the complainant got the superdari of his vehicle from the Hon’ble Court of Shri Vineet, CJM, Nuh, Haryana vide order dated 29.05.2019. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and admitted that the complainant had brought his accidental vehicle for repair in
the workshop of the opposite party. It was submitted that the opposite party had received the payment of Rs.444,706/- from the complainant regarding the repairing and new parts installed in the vehicle of the complainant. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Jagat Singh, Annx.1 – RC, Annx.2 – not readable,, Annx.-3 – Adhaar card, Annx. 4- Form 24, Annx.-5 – Form 47, Annx-6 – Format in respect of National Permit (Heavy Goods Vehicle), Annx-7 – insurance policy, Annx.8 – order dated 29.5.2019 passed by Shri Vineet Sapra D/CJM, Nuh, Annx-9 – FIR,, Annx-10 – Bill book,, Annx-11 – Tax invoice , Annx.12 –legal notice,, Annx-13 – track report,, Ann x-14 – postal receipt, Annx.1-5 – legal notice,, Annx16 – postal receipts.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Ankita Bose. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Navi Mumbai.
6. In this case, affidavit tendered by the official of the insurance company stating therein that the claim of the complainant was repudiated due to non submission of documents and non co-operation of the complainant to solve the issue of the damage vehicle and the complainant did not give the estimate bills and other documents to solve the issue of the damage vehicle.
7. After going through the evidence led by both the parties as well as the written submissions submitted by the opposite party, the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the complainant did not co-operate with the surveyor appointed by the opposite party and also has not given proper documents during the investigation of the surveyor, which violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis after deduction of 25% of the invoice amount given by the complainant as well as crane charges receipt given by the complainant vide Annexure -10 alongwith the original bills & estimate. The complainant is also directed to provide bills, estimate, photographs, spot survey, mechanic report as well as other relevant documents immediately and thereafter opposite party will pay on non standard basis after deduction of 25% of the billed amount. This case is of no- co-operation of the complainant. Hence, no cost is imposed upon the opposite party. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 18.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
