Haryana

StateCommission

A/42/2019

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIRENDER TUSHIR - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    42 of 2019

Date of Institution:  11.01.2019

Date of Decision:   29.01.2019

 

1.      SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Grievance Redressal Officer, 101, 201, 301, Natraj Junction of Western Express Highways & Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069.

 

2.      SBI GIC Limited, 7B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road, Opposite to Rachna Cinema and Metro Pillar No.153, Rajendra Park, New Delhi-110060 both through its Sh. Jitendra Dhabhai, Deputy Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 7B, Metro Pillar No.153, Pusa Road, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110060

 

Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Vijender Tushir son of Shukhbir Singh at present Village Nagal Kalan, Sonepat, Haryana.

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

                  

                            

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Grievance Redressal Officer and SBI GIC Limited through its Deputy Manager (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) are in appeal against the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Sonepat whereby complaint filed by Virender Tushir (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) stood allowed by directing the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR23G-5353, to the complainant. 

2.      According to the complainant, his vehicle No.HR23G-5353 was insured with the opposite parties for the period with effect from 13.08.2017 to 12.08.2018 for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 05.11.2017.  After the accident, the complainant informed the opposite parties on the same day.  The opposite parties deputed surveyor, namely, Sh. Pankaj Rohilla, who inspected the vehicle at the spot and found that the vehicle was totally damaged.  The vehicle was removed through crane on 06.11.2017 and Malwa Auto Sales, Kundli assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.19,34,310/-.  The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties and requested many times to make the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- to him.  Vide letter dated 17.01.2018 the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the insured vehicle was not in running condition on the date of accident.  In fact the vehicle of the complainant was in running condition as the complainant had produced it before Malwa Auto Sales on 14.10.2017 for its service and at that time the vehicle had run 52320 km.  The complainant completed all the formalities but the opposite parties did not pay any heed.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum with the prayer to direct the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- alongwith interest and further to make the payment of Rs.3,000/- on account of crane charges; Rs.8,000/- for getting estimate; Rs.30,000/- on account of deficiency in service; Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written version submitting therein that they had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because on scrutiny of documents submitted by the complainant and information received through surveyor/investigator, the opposite parties had observed that the odometer reading of the complainant’s vehicle at the time of pre-inspection on 12.08.2017 was 46047 km and this was exactly the same at the time of final survey conducted on 06.11.2017. The complainant had provided vehicle service bill dated 14.10.2017 with odometer reading of 52530 km to conceal the facts.  Besides, the vehicle was not in running condition from the date/time of pre-inspection and therefore it was not possible for the insured vehicle to meet with an accident in running condition.  Further, the physical damages present on the vehicle did not corroborate with the cause of loss as intimated to the opposite parties, the vehicle being not in movable condition.  Accordingly, the complainant was not entitled for any relief.

4.      As mentioned above, the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties directed to make the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- as IDV of the vehicle to the complainant.

5.      Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, it is made out that in the surveyor report (Exhibit R-14), it was mentioned that the speedometer reading was 47064 km, which was also the reading at the time of pre-inspection.  On the other hand, the copy of service record dated 14.10.2017 proved the reading 52320 km as on said date.  In the photograph (Exhibit C-18), the speedometer reading was reflected as 53172 km.  Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the vehicle of the complainant was not in running condition.

6.      The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties on the basis of report of Pankaj Rohilla, the surveyor.  However, the surveyor report was not supported by any affidavit.  It has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Hira Lal Ramesh Chand Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2003 (II), CPJ, 43 that the surveyor report without affidavit has no evidentiary value.  It is an admitted fact that the vehicle belonging to the complainant met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy and the IDV of the said vehicle was Rs.14,00,000/-.

7.      In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum whereby the complaint filed by the complainant stood allowed. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

 

Announced 29.01.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K.