Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/283/2020

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/283/2020
Date of Institution	:	16/07/2020
Date of Decision	:	30/10/2024

 

Jasvir Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of House No.20/2, Mohalla Shivpuri, Derabassi District Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.350-352, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Rampal Kohle, Adv. Proxy for Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Counsel for OP

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that on 21.6.2019 he had purchased Swift car from M/s Autopace Network Private Limited and paid total amount of ₹6,06,173/- vide receipts/statement (Annexure C-1 to C-6). At the time of delivery the complainant had paid a sum of ₹47,000/- to Sh. Sabar Din, employee of M/s Autopace Network Private Limited for obtaining the registration certificate.  The Swift car was delivered to the complainant vide invoice dated 28.6.2019 and the same was insured with the OP w.e.f. 30.6.2019 to 29.6.2020. The Registration Authority, Mohali issued registration No.PB-65-AW-2534 to the said car.  On 23.9.2019 the said car met with an accident and due information was given to the OP who appointed surveyor.  However, despite visit of the complainant, OP did not settle the claim and pay the repair charges and under constrained circumstances the complainant had to pay the sum of ₹91,319/- to the repairer from his own. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid to the repairer alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        In its written version OP averred that the vehicle in question was insured as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which were duly supplied to the complainant.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 30.6.2019 and as per the registration slip provided by him of Registering Authority, Dera Bassi, the new RC was applied on 5.9.2019 and the same was valid upto 5.10.2019 but on checking records from Vahan website, it transpired that the road tax was paid on 16.9.2019, which proves that the registration of the vehicle was applied on 16.9.2019.  It is further averred that as per the investigation report submitted by Sh. Anurag Midha, the date of accident informed by the complainant to the insurance company is 24.9.2019 whereas the actual date of accident is on or before 10.9.2019. As such, at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was not having valid registration.  Accordingly the OP sent letter dated 4.12.2019 to the complainant but he failed to reply to the same and finally vide letter dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure R-3) the claim of the complainant was declined. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        In replication, complainant controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own.
4.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
6.        It is observed from the record that the OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure R-3) primarily on the ground that though the complainant had informed the date of loss as 23.9.2019 but as per investigation report vehicle in question reported to garage for accidental damage on 10.9.2019 and since the same was registered on 16.9.2019, it is clear that at the time of loss the same was not having any valid registration. Hence, the core question for determination before us is if the vehicle in question, at the time of its loss, was validly registered or not?
7.        However, surprisingly in support of its defence OP has not placed on record any cogent documentary evidence, except copy of one self-serving page of Gate register (Annexure R-2) showing the entry of the vehicle in question on 10.9.2019 to the bodyshop.  Even perusal of the said document shows that the relevant details viz. meter reading, gate pass No., job card, signature etc. are left blank.
8.        Not only this, even if the allegation of the OP is believed to be correct (though without admitting it) that the complainant took the vehicle to the bodyshop of the OP on 10.9.2019, OP has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the said alleged loss occurred on 10.9.2019 and 23.9.2019 are one and the same.  Moreover, it can also not be denied that even if the vehicle in question visited the bodyshop for repairs on 10.9.2019, complainant might not have lodged any claim qua that. 
9.        In such circumstances, in order to substantiate its stand it was imperative for the OP/insurer to have gathered the entire documentary record viz. job card, invoice etc., from the repairer and adduced the same before this Commission to prove that the vehicle in question actually suffered damage on 10.9.2019 i.e. before its registration on 16.9.2019 and the complainant intentionally lodged claim qua the same later on, but it has miserably failed to do so.
10.        Otherwise also, it is settled law that one who asserts must prove and since it is the OP who has asserted that the vehicle in question suffered damage and visited the bodyshop for accidental repairs on 10.9.2019 i.e. before its registration on 16.9.2019, burden to prove the same lies on its shoulders only.  Here we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahakali Sujatha Vs.  Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., II (2024) CPJ 66 (SC) and the relevant portion of the same reads as under :-

“50. …….. The cardinal principle of burden of proof in the law of evidence is that “he who asserts must prove”, which means that if the respondents herein had asserted that the insured had already taken fifteen more policies, then it was incumbent on them to prove this fact by leading necessary evidence. The onus cannot be shifted on the appellant to deal with issues that have merely been alleged by the respondents, without producing any evidence to support that allegation………. A fact has to be duly proved as per the Evidence Act, 1872 and the burden to prove a fact rests upon the person asserting such a fact………..”

As such, the act of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle in question was not validly registered at the time of loss certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

11.        In support of his claim complainant has placed on record the receipt dated 15.1.2020 (Annexure C-12) amounting to ₹91,319/- issued by Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. (authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer) towards the repair of the vehicle in question.
12.        In view of the foregoing discussion and the ratio of law laid down above, it is clear the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OP is directed to pay the amount of ₹91,319/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till the date of its actual realization.
13.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
14.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED 30/10/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER