Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1098/2011

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.1098/2011     

IN THE MATTER OF:

JASBIR SINGH

Son of ShriPritam Singh

Resident of H-16, Lajpat Nagar-1,

New Delhi-110024                                                         ....COMPLAINANT

 

                                      VERSUS

 

United India Assurance Company

Through its Branch Manager

46, BasantLok, VasantVihar,

New Delhi-110057                                                          ....OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

                                                                                                                        Date of Institution:-18.11.2011                                                                                                                                                                           Date of Order   : -   04.01.2023

  

ORDER

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) alleging deficiency of service by Opposite Party (in short OP).   Briefly stated the facts that the complainant is owner of the car, Maruti Wagaon R bearing registration No. DL 3C AD 3566.
2. It is further alleged that the above car was comprehensively insured by Opposite Party for the period of 20.03.2010 to 19.03.2011. The total IDV of the car in question was Rs. 1,78,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand only).
3. It is further stated that unfortunately in the morning of 02.06.2010, the above car met with an accident with a Dumper, at Express Highway, Greater Noida. At the time of accident the car in question was being driven by friend of the complainant, Rahul who held a valid driving license.
4. It is further alleged that the complainant immediately reported the matter to Opposite Party as well as concerned police at Noida. The car in question was damaged badly and was not in position to move hence the complainant brought the car to  Maruti Service Masters at Friends Colony, by crane who charged an amount of Rs. 1,544/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four only).
5. It is also stated that the Maruti Service  Masters is the Authorized Service Station of Maruti and had issued a job Estimate amounting to Rs. 4,15,436/83 (Rupees Four Lakh Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six and Eighty Three) which was supplied to the opposite party. The opposite party appointed a Surveyor and who raised some queries which the complainant immediately replied. Thereafter on 14.07.2010 the Surveyor wrote a letter to. Rahul who was driving the car at the time of accident. Rahul also immediately replied to query of Surveyor and Loss Assessor.
6. It is also alleged that thereafter the opposite party changed the surveyor and deputed a new Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely Mr. B.R. Sharma who wrote a letter to the complainant on 04.10.2010, The complainant replied the same. It is also alleged that the OP has not paid the claim amount. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the IDV of car in question i.e. Rs. 1,78,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for mental agony as well as Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) for litigation expenses.
7. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP, OP entered appearance and filed reply taking preliminary objection that  the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which can only be adjudicated upon in a civil court of law and not under the summary jurisdiction as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. It was also alleged there have been several violations of the policy and suppression of material  facts and by complinant which compelled the Opposite Party/Insurance Company to close the claim. The complainant has no cause of action against the O.P.

 

8. It was also alleged that on 02.06.2010, the O.P. received information from the complainant about the incident. The OP immediately appointed the Spot Surveyor, M/s R.M. S Associates to survey the accidented vehicle at the spot of the accident. The Surveyor visited the spot of the accident, namely, Noida- Greater Noida Expressway, near Sector-91, and Inspected the accidented vehicle at the purported spot of accident, took the necessary photographs and submitted the report dated 04.06.2010. As per the report there was no evidence of an shattered glass etc. on the road. The road appeared to be remarkably clean.

 

9. It was alleged that the complainant filed Claim Form Annexure O.P./2, per which, one Rahul Tyagi, r/o A-5, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110091, was driving the insured vehicle at the time of incident. The O.P, thereafter, appointed a surveyor. The Surveyor, vide letter dated 01.07.2010, requested the purported driver, Rahul, to answer certain questions. However, the letter, sent under Speed Post, was returned undelivered with the report "no such person in this address". The Surveyor again sent another reminder dated 14.07.2010, to the purported driver, Rahul, However, even the said reminder was returned undelivered with the report  "no such person at this address".

 

10. It was alleged that the complainant had violated Condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Annexure OP/18, namely, that " Notice shall be given in writing tot he Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall given all such information and assistance as the Company shall require." 

 

11. It was also submitted that the insurance policy is based upon utmost good faith of the contracting parties and any falsehood or misrepresentation on the part of the insured would disentitle him from claiming indemnification under the policy. It was further alleged that in the present case, there was no police record of the purported complaint lodged by the complainant, neither any evidence of accident at place of occurrence. There was contradiction between the statements of the insured/ complainant and the purported driver Rahul, who appears to have been planted with a view to securing the claim. There was no injury on the body of Rahul, which appears impossible in an accident of this magnitude, as the front part of the vehicle was completely damaged and crushed.
12. It was also alleged submitted that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant resides at Lajpat Nagar, the office of the O.P. is situated at Vasant Vihar and purported accident took place at Greater Noida, U.P. The surveyor submitted report assessing it to be case of total loss of.
13. The complainant thereafter filed rejoinder, denying all the allegations made in the reply and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. It is to be noted that repudiation letter was not filed by OP. OP had filed a letter OP/17 dated 27.12.2010 stating that complainant failed to provide the required information and documents.
14. In view thereof we grant 6 weeks time to complainant to provide the required documents to OP to process the claim. OP shall process the claim, subject to complainant providing the required documents within 6 weeks and send the report to the complainant. The complaint stands disposed off.

A copy of order be sent to both parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of the order.

 

 

Poonam Chaudhry

   ( President)

 

 

Shekhar Chandra

    ( Member)