DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.191/2018  

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency in rejecting the accidental claim of his vehicle despite a valid policy.     

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he is the owner of vehicle having registration number DL 8C AK 8509 make Renault Duster and he had a valid insurance policy for the period from 02.06.2016 to 01.06.2017 for a sum insured of Rs.9,08,000/-.  The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 22.11.2016 whereafter the intimation was given to the OP and he was requested to lodge the claim and on the advice of the officers of OP the car was lifted by crane and was sent to the authorized service centre of Renault at Mayapuri Industrial Area by spending Rs.1200/-  where the estimate of repair was given as Rs.18,20,723/-.  The same was also submitted to the OP as per Annexure A3, the respondent thereafter deputed one surveyor namely Sh. S. Kumar who inspected the accidental vehicle, got it photographed, collected all documents i.e. Policy Copy, Claim Form, Copy of RC, Driving License, Service Record of Vehicle, Purchase Bill of Vehicle and Copy of Cancelled Cheque, Two Photographs of Complainant and he had promised for releasing the claim at the earliest but the same was not done.  Complainant also spent Rs.20,000/- for getting the estimate which was also communicated and thereafter he sent various letters and emails dated 03.07.2017, 14.09.2017, 26.09.2017 and 09.09.2017 to settle the claim and even a letter was received by the complainant and the points raised therein were clarified but OP was delaying the claim on one pretext or the other and ultimately rejected the claim on 15.11.2017 and as such he has filed the claim before this Commission thereby praying that IDV amount of Rs.908000/- be given to the complainant, alongwith Rs.20,000/- as spent by the complainant for getting the estimate of repair and Rs.1200/- for towing charges, with interest @24% p.a., compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.1,50,000/-. 
2. The OP was served and has filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable on various grounds interalia that it involves complicated question of facts and law, there is no deficiency on the part of OP, the complainant has not placed true facts on Commission’s record the clarification which was sought from complainant vide letter dated 20.06.2017 was given much later on 14.09.2017 and complaint is an abuse of the process of law.  On merits the policy, IDV value of the vehicle, the period of its insurance, payment of premium amount, information given by complainant to OP and repudiating of claim are not disputed and it is stated that the matter was not fit for settlement as complainant was not giving reply to the letters written by OP therefore the same was repudiated which was valid and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
3. Complainant thereafter filed Rejoinder thereby denying the contents of written statement and reiterating the contents of the complaint.          
4. Complainant has filed his own affidavit of evidence whereas OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Pratap Singh, the Administrative Officer of the OP.           
5. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.
6. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
7.  The Commission has enquired various facts from the complainant to the extent that there is no FIR lodged by the complainant, there are no evidence of public witness, there is no driving license of the person who was driving the vehicle, there was no medical record showing any injury to the person who was driving the vehicle and there was no payment of the bill for repair and the clarification was sought from the counsel for complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has explained that since no one was injured in the accident and therefore there was no necessity of registering the FIR, the DL has been obtained by the surveyor, and since the vehicle had gone for the total loss/ cash loss the vehicle was not repaired and as such there is no bill of repair.  Above all it is submitted that the Insurance Co. has not denied the happening of accident rather has confirmed that the accident has happened and therefore these documents even otherwise are not required.  The contention of counsel for complainant is therefore well found but it is quite surprising on the part of investigator who has not demanded such proof of accident before giving its report. 
8. Along with the arguments the OP has also filed surveyor report given by one Sh. Karan Singh assessing the loss as Rs.6,57,000/- after deducting the value the salvage @ Rs.2,50,000/-.  The said surveyor report also gives a detailed report in which he confirms that he visited the location of accident on 27.04.2017 and again on 14.06.2017 and enquired about the accident which was confirmed by one Sh. Akbar.  The Policeman also visited the spot and the said Akbar confirmed that one of two sons of Mr. Jaitly was driving the car and no injury to any third party had occurred in the accident and the report is without prejudice to the interest of the OP.  From all these facts the facts that accident has happened, the vehicle has not been repaired and it has been declared as total loss/ cash loss stands established.  What is the value of the salvage has not been proved by the OP.  The contention as raised by the surveyor in the report by which it is stated that vehicle was being driven by one of the son of the complainant has also not been supported by any document of the OP rather this is not the defence of the OP in its written statement, and therefore cannot be given much credence.  The IDV is not disputed and claim has not been given to the complainant so far and therefore this Commission is of the opinion that complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP.      
9. The claim of the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- for getting the estimate of repair is not covered in any of the clause of the OP and therefore this relief cannot be granted.  The complainant would transfer the RC in the name of the Insurance Company  and hand over the salvage at his own cost as per the inventory made by the surveyor which has been estimated by the surveyor for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and would complete all the legal formalities by executing the necessary papers w.r.t. transferring the RC in the name of OP.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows: 

• OP would pay IDV value of Rs. 9,08,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 08.06.2018 after receiving the salvage from the complainant and on completing the process of transfer of RC in the name of OP at complainant’s own cost.  The OP would also pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant with litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1200/- towards crane charges.         

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which OP would pay interest @ 9% on all the above amounts till realization.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 10.01.2024.