Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 356.
Instituted on : 08.09.2020.
Decided on : 22.08.2022.
Som Devi age 42 years w/o Vinod Kumar(Deceased) R/o H.No.2383/20, Near Haryana School Preet Vihar Colony, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Ltd., Reliance Centre, 4th Floor, South Wing Near Prabhat colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz(East), Mumbai.-400055.
- M/s Assem Autos Pvt. Ltd. Renault India, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Opp. 2nd Entrance, Sector-1, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Ashok Sehgal Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s husband was the owner of vehicle Kwid RTX manufactured by Renault India Pvt. Ltd. bearing registration No.HR12AA0982 and the respondent no.2 issued an insurance policy of respondent no.1 i.e Reliance General Insurance Ltd. bearing no.993191923110007358 commenced from 28.12.2019 to 27.12.2020 for IDV Rs.225000/-. The complainant is nominee and the vehicle has been financed by the OBC and the loan amount is cleared by the complainant. The husband of complainant was coming to Rohtak and near Hansi his car met with an accident on 03.07.2020 when an animal suddenly came in front of the said vehicle and while trying to escape it, the vehicle hit the pillar and he got injuries and had expired. After getting the intimation of the said accident well in time, the respondent no.1 has registered the claim vide claim no.3120093324 and told the complainant to park the car at respondent no.2 workshop and the same was parked at the premises of respondent no.2. After that surveyor inspected the vehicle and told that the vehicle is total loss and is beyond repair so company will settle the claim as per IDV. Complainant deposited all the relevant documents as and when asked by the respondent no.1 but the Surveyor is delaying the claim knowingly by asking the same documents again and again. Complainant deposited the documents 7-8 times but they are again demanding the same documents. Respondent no.2 also asked for parking charges/accidental labour charges whereas they have wrongly charged Rs.5000/- from the complainant against the bill Rs.4997/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties to settle the claim and not to demand any parking charges but to no effect. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.225000/- on account of IDV and Rs.1500000/- on account of policy benefits (PA Cover) in case of death alongwith interest, Rs.1500/- on account of crane charges, to refund the payment of estimate charge/parking charges/accidental labour charges Rs.5000/-, Rs.11000/- as litigation charges and Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant has not submitted the requisite documents inspite of many requests to the complainant, further the answering respondent has duly sent a letter dated 05.10.2020 to provide the cancellation of registration certificate of vehicle and also sent reminders dated 16.12.2020 & 01.01.2021. On merits it is submitted that answering opposite party has not received complete documents as Cancellation of RC, NOC, Police status report, salvage. The vehicle is with the complainant and the present status of vehicle has not submitted and the salvage value could not assessed. Complainant has not registered the claim in respect of Personal Accident with the respondent Insurance Company. So the claim of Personal Accident is not tenable and the same deserve to be dismissed. That without admitting the insurance and coverage of the vehicle, it is submitted that treatment record, Post mortem record MLR and legal heir record is also required to prove the claim of Personal Accident Insurance. So the complainant has not co-operated with the answering respondent Insurance company and the same is mandatory conditions of process of claim and the same is violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy conditions no.1. So the claim of Personal Accident Insurance is not tenable and the same deserve to be dismissed. It is also submitted that without admitting the accident, Insurance coverage, it is submitted that Vinod(since deceased) was under the influence of Alcohol/liquor and was not capable of driving of the vehicle so opposite party is not liable to pay any amount under Insurance Policy IMT 15 which describes that no amount shall be payable whilst such person is under the influence of intoxication liquor or drugs. It is further submitted that the respondent insurance company cannot process the claim of the complainant without submitting the requisite documents. The insurance company is duly bound to obtain documents and complainant is under obligation under terms and conditions of policy to assist and provide the necessary documents of claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is wrong that the respondent no.2 has wrongly charged Rs.5000/- from the complainant/ The said amount was on account of estimate charges. No excess amount has been charged by the respondent no.2. It is denied that complainant requested the answering opposite party for settlement of claim. Answering respondent has no concerned with settlement of claim because the same is to be settled by the respondent no.1 with whom the vehicle was insured. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was in total loss and was not repairable and as such complainant was having no right to keep the vehicle in the workshop. The answering respondent requested the complainant many times to take away the vehicle and also sent email as well as legal notice dated 12.01.2021. But the complainant did not come to take the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and closed his evidence on dated 15.06.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 on dated 04.01.22 and Ex.R3 & Ex.R4 on dated 18.04.2022 but thereafter failed to conclude its evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. As such evidence of opposite party no.1 was closed by the order dated 01.06.2022 of this Commission.. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that reply already filed on its behalf be read in evidence as an affidavit and also tendered documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4 and closed his evidence on 09.07.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record very carefully.
5. In the present case the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the opposite party on the ground of non submission of some documents which were required to process the claim. To prove the same opposite party No.1 has placed on record copy of letters Ex.R1 dated 05.10.2020, letter Ex.R3 dated 16.12.2020 & Ex.R4 dated 01.01.2021. As per affidavit Ex.RW1/A also, it is submitted that complainant has not submitted the cancellation of Registration certificate of vehicle, police report, Medical report, NOC of financer and legal heir details. On the other hand complainant has placed on record copies of emails Ex.C7 to Ex.C18 to prove that the documents as required by the opposite party no.1 were sent by the complainant to the surveyor. As per copy of email Ex.C11, complainant has submitted that she has already submitted the documents with Mr. Sonu Rana and the complainant attached the conversation with Sonu Rana regarding receiving of documents by him. But to prove this fact complainant has not placed on record any conversation between the complainant and the Surveyor Sonu Rana. As per email Ex.C18 also, opposite party has demanded documents pending from the complainant for further process of the claim. In this regard ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 13.03.2014 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana titled as National Ins. Co. Vs. Jagbir, whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that some documents have already been submitted by the complainant with the opposite party No.1. Regarding the cancellation of R.C, a letter has already been written by the opposite party no.1 to the RTO office, Rohtak on dated 22.08.2020 and copy of the same is placed on record by the complainant as ‘Annexure-JN-A’. Regarding the L.Rs we have observed that a document has been placed on record by the complainant on dated 01.06.2022 with the reply of application dated 18.04.2022, which is a copy of case status of MACP, filed by the complainant before the District and Sessions Court, Rohtak, as per which following are the LRs of the deceased Vinod Kumar i.e. Som Devi w/o Late Vinod Kumar, Nikita d/o late Vinod Kumar, Kunal s/o late Vinod kumar, Birmati w/o Jai Bhagwan. Regarding the other documents we hereby direct the complainant to submit the remaining documents i.e. Affidavit on non judicial stamp paper, KYC documents(Aadhar/PAN etc.), PMR & death certificate with the opposite party No.1. At the time of arguments, Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 made a statement that they do not want any parking charges and the complainant is at liberty to take back his vehicle and they will not charge any parking charges from the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we herby allow the complaint and direct the complainant to submit the alleged documents with the opposite party no.1 within 15 days and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall pay the IDV of vehicle after deducting the scrap value which we have assessed as Rs.30000/- i.e.to pay Rs.195000/- and Rs.1500000/- on account of Personal Accident Death Claim i.e. total Rs.1695000/-(Rupees sixteen lac ninety five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order i.e. 22.08.2022 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of submission of documents by the complainant. However, complainant can collect his vehicle from the opposite party No.2 within 15 days from the date or order and the opposite party no.2 shall not charge any parking charges from the complainant. It is made clear that the amount so disbursed will be paid to the L.Rs. of the deceased Vinod i.e. 1)Som Devi w/o Late Vinod Kumar, 2) Nikita d/o late Vinod Kumar, 3)Kunal s/o late Vinod kumar, and 4) Birmati w/o Jai Bhagwan in equal share and the share of Nikita and Kunal shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in the shape of FDR(if they are minor) and will be disbursed to them at the time of attaining the age of majority.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.08.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
