Haryana

Karnal

CC/558/2019

Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ankit Sahni

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

      BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

      

                                                     

Complaint No.168 of 2015

Date of instt. 28.07.2015

And after restoration

complaint no.558 of 2019

Date of Decision:25.08.2022

 

Lakhvinder Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh, resident of 186 Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 145-146, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company through its Branch Office, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri Kanavdeep Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Shri A.K.Vohra, counsel for opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his car make Renault Duster bearing registration no.HR-77-0079 with the OPs, bearing policy no.2005532311020440, valid from 19.10.2013 to 18.10.2014.  On 02.07.2014 the said car met with an accident near village Pattra, District Patiala Punjab and the intimation was given to the agent of the OPs. After the inspection said car was brought to the authorized repair center at Karnal where necessary formalities of the insurance company were done and it was found that the said car was a total loss and cannot be repaired and put on the road being extensive damages to the entire car. The total loss assessed at Rs.6,50,000/-. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and completed all the formalities. The letter of subrogation and indemnity bond was executed in favour of the insurance company after obtaining the report of the surveyor.  Complainant visited the office of OPs so many times and requested to settle the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly denied the same on the false and frivolous ground. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; territorial jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, as the policy in question was issued from Mumbai/Panipat and claim of complainant was processed and closed from Chandigarh. The OP is having no Branch Office at Karnal as alleged by impleading OP no.2. It is further pleaded that complainant is resident of village Damli, P.O. Rawa, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra and abovesaid vehicle met with an accident near village Patran, District Patiala (Pb.) as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of territorial jurisdiction.  It is further pleaded that complainant had intimated a claim with the OPs on account of damage/loss due to accident of vehicle Renault Duster RXL 85 PS bearing registration no.HR 77 0079 and same was registered as Insurance Claim no.2141087964 by the OPs. The said claim of complainant duly processed by way of appointment of an IRDA approved independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor Mr.B.B. Chawla for conducting the survey and assessment of loss of vehicle, who inspected the damaged vehicle and sent two registered letters dated 01.11.2014 and 10.02.2015 to the complainant by which complainant has been asked to start the vehicle repair work and for which neither the surveyor nor the OPs have received any response or reply from the complainant, after which surveyor has submitted survey report subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and approval from Insurer. The present complaint of the complainant is premature one since the complainant has failed to respond the letters dated 01.11.2014 and 10.02.2015 send by the surveyor as well as letter dated 02.03.2015 send by the OPs, by which complainant has been asked to start the vehicle repair work and as such the claim of the complainant has already been closed in the absence of any response from the side of the complainant. The OPs has neither repudiated nor denied the claim of the complainant till today and will decide the admissibility of the claim on receiving the response as required by the OPs, vide letter dated 02.03.2015. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, copy of survey fee bill Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of RC, licence Ex.C4, copy of DDR Ex.C5, copy of survey report Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 14.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, Learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Suryadeep Thakur, Area Manager Ex.OW1/A, affidavit of B.B.Chawla, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OW2/A, copy of survey report Ex.O1, copy of letter dated 21.06.2022 of B.B. Chawla Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.O2 and Ex.O3, copy of letter dated 02.03.2015 Ex.O4, postal receipt Mark-A and closed the evidence on 21.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             It is pertinent to mention here that earlier, the present complaint has been dismissed in default by this Forum (now Commission) on 23.10.2017 due to non appearance of the complainant.  Being aggrieved, complainant challenged the said order before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula by way of filing the first appeal no.411 of 2019. The Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 16.07.2019 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Forum (now Commission) and case has been remitted to this District Commission to decide its on merits after affording an opportunity to present appellant to lead his respective evidence and advancing final arguments.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his car with the OPs.  On 02.07.2014 the said car met with an accident near village Pattra, District Patiala Punjab and the intimation was given to the OPs. After the inspection said car was brought to the authorized repair center at Karnal and it was found that the said car was a total loss and cannot be repairable. The total loss assessed at Rs.6,50,000/-. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and completed all the formalities but OPs did not settle the claim after repeated requests of complainant and denied to pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as BMW India Private Limited Versus Mukul Aggarwal & Ors. in first appeal no.81 of 2015, date of decision 10.12.2019 and Data Ram Mishra Versus Northern Railway, Ferozepur, Division, Ferozepur (2019) 3 CPJ 184 (Punjab State Commission).

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, as the policy in question was issued from Mumbai/Panipat. The OP is having no Branch Office at Karnal and complainant is resident of village Damli, P.O. Rawa, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra and abovesaid vehicle met with an accident near village Patran, District Patiala (Pb.) as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of territorial jurisdiction. He further argued that complainant had intimated a claim with the OPs on account of damage/loss due to accident of vehicle in question. The said claim of complainant duly processed by way of appointment of an IRDA approved independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor for conducting the survey and assessment of loss of vehicle. The surveyor sent two registered letters to the complainant by which complainant has been asked to start the vehicle repair work and for which neither the surveyor nor the OPs have received any response or reply from the complainant, The present complaint of the complainant is premature one since the complainant has failed to respond the letters dated 01.11.2014, 10.02.2015 and 02.03.2015, by which complainant has been asked to start the vehicle repair work and as such the claim of the complainant has already been closed in the absence of any response from the side of the complainant. The OPs has neither repudiated nor denied the claim of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question had met with an accident during the subsistence of insurance policy and intimation in this regard was given to OPs.

12.           The first question for consideration is that whether this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

13.           Admittedly, the policy was not issued at Karnal.  The accident took place near village Pattra, District Patiala, Punjab. Intimation in this regard was given to the OPs and vehicle in question had been shifted for repair at Bhatia Motors near ITI Chowk, G.T. Road Karnal. On receipt of the information, OPs appointed a surveyor and loss assessor namely B.B. Chawla, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,63,698/- and prepared surveyor report Ex.O1 at Karnal. If there was no cause of action had accrued in the area of District Karnal, OP should have rejected the claim intimation straightway and should have not appointed the surveyor to survey/inspect the vehicle in question. Thus, OPs themselves have created the cause of action in the area of Karnal prior to filing the present complaint. In view of the above, this Commission has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

14.           The OPs have also taken a plea that complainant has not replied the letters dated 01.11.2014, 10.02.2015 and 02.03.2015 Ex.O2 to Ex.O4, vide which OPs asked the complainant to start the repair work of vehicle and informed the OPs but complainant did not reply the said letters and in the absence of any response from the side of the complainant, OPs closed the claim of complainant. Moreover, the person whose personal interest is involved in form of the huge claim amount, then, as to why, he would not reply the queries raised by the OPs.     Furthermore, in the abovesaid letters unnecessary queries raised by the surveyor of the OPs just to harass the complainant and lingered the claim of the complainant. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs has no force.

15. Further, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

                It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy.

 

16.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OPs while denying/closing the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service, which is otherwise proved genuine one. 

17.           Complainant claimed Rs.6,50,000/-as total loss of the vehicle in question and relied upon the surveyor report Ex.C6 prepared by Er. J.K. Sharma Automobile Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The said report is a photocopy. Complainant neither placed on file original copy of the said report nor has tendered the affidavit of Er. J.K. Sharma Automobile Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor in his evidence. Hence, the said report of surveyor has no weightage. Furthermore, as per insurance policy Ex.C3, the IDV value of the vehicle in question is Rs.9,31,000/- and the surveyor of the complainant has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- which is also less than 75% of the IDV value and thus vehicle does not fall under the category of total loss.  Rather, OPs have placed on record surveyor report Ex.O1, in which the loss assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.2,63,698/- and said report also supported by the affidavit of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely B.B. Chawla as Ex.OW2/A. Therefore, the report of the surveyor of the OPs will prevail. In this regard we rely upon the authority 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of this authority as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs are liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest, compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,63,698/- (Rs.two lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred ninety eight only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:25.08.2022.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                               Member