Haryana

StateCommission

A/313/2019

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHABIR SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN OHRI

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.313 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 04.04.2018

Date of final hearing: 11.04.2023

 

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd., Big Jos Tower, 2^ndFloor, A-8 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi and JMD Regent Arcade, Shop no. 13, 14, 15, 2nd floor, MG Road Gurgaon through its authorized signatory, Mr. Rishikant, Legal Executive, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd., Mercantile House, 7^th Floor, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

…..Appellant

Versus

Mahabir Singh son of Sh. Bhalle Ram r/o Govt. Polytechnic College Jhajjar.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                  

 

Present:-    Mr.SachinOhri, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr. Ravi Kant, counsel for the Respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 05 days in filing the present appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay. 

2.      The present appeal No.313of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.16 of 2018, which wasallowed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2017complainant’s vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-26BB-6127 met with an accident which was insured with Ops vide insurance policy No. FPV/12163489/13/04/02885. As per loss assessed by the surveyor, it was a total loss to the said vehicle but despite his several requests and visits, nothing was paid to the complainant by the OPs.Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      In its written version, OPs submitted thaton receipt of intimation about the loss, surveyor was deputed to examine the accidental vehicle No. HR-26BB-6127 immediately for repairs and replacements and surveyor reported that the loss was discussed with the repairers and after discussions and persuasions, the liability, if any of the insurance company was found to the tune of Rs. 1,98,002.60 ps only. Even otherwise this complaint is pre -mature and required formalities have not been accomplished by the complainant for claim processing, which were necessary for assessing and settling the claim of said vehicle. Complainant never incurred Rs. 12,42,751/- as alleged by him. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPsand prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Jhajjar has allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.02.2019, which is as under:-

“we therefore, direct the OPs to release the genuine claim of the complainant by deducting the assessed the value i.e. Rs. 1,41,000/-from the IDV of said car which comes to Rs. 3,29,000/-to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded an amount of Rs.6600/-qua the mental harassment and litigation expenses.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argumentswere advanced by Sh.SachinOhri, learned counsel for the appellant and that of Sh.Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of appealas well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that complainant lodged the claim with the appellant after delay of 4 days and no FIR or DDR was lodged by the complainant. Even then appellant appointed surveyor to know the geniuses of the claim and assess the liability of the appellant company as per terms and conditions of the policy. Various letters were sent to the complainant to produce his vehicle under repair and re-inspection photos for processing of claim but he failed to provideall these necessary documents which clearly indicate that complainant himself was negligent and non-cooperative. Learned District Commission awarded compensation on the basis of repair bills and ignored the report of surveyor without assigning and cogent reason which is not tenable in law.  The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for so this appeal deserves to be allowed.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued thatvehicle met with an accident during subsistence of the policy and complainant lodged a genuine claim with appellant on 09.03.2017 with all documents but appellant has failed to indemnify the insured.Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

10.              It is admitted fact of both the parties that complainant gotinsured his vehicle from OPs against IDV value of Rs.4,70,000/- which met with an accident on 05.03.2017. It is also admitted that complainant lodged claim with Ops, who inturnappointed surveyor to assess the lossoccurred to vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that complainant has not provided the required documents in spite of various communications to him.Since the damage to the vehicle was a total loss and appellant has failed to release the claim of the complainant despite in possession of surveyor report, therefore, learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. Moreover there is no material on record to suggest that any communication sent to complainant seeking some documents were not headed by him.  Moreover it is common experience as to how insurance companies rush to repudiate event he genuine claims at a drop of hat or these companies put in all its efforts to find out any minutest lapse on the part of the insured to repudiate the claim. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 25.02.2019.  The appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 11^th April, 2023

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S. P. Sood)                                                                                                                          Judicial Member                

S.K.

(Pvt. Secy.)