Punjab

Sangrur

CC/458/2021

Jagtar Singh Kaler - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sukhdeep Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mapreet Singh

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 458

 Instituted on:   26.03.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     05.09.2023

 

Jagtar Singh Kaler son of Harnek Singh resident of Solia Patti, VPO Bahadarpur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             Sukhdeep Singh son of Baghel Singh, resident of Kalu Patti, VPO Duggan, Tehsil and District Sangrur (Insurance Advisor).

2.             Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, (BO) (312801) BO Gurgaon, Gurudwara Road, Opp Kamla Nehru Park, Haryana-122001. (Policy Issuing office).

3.             Chief Manager, New India Assurance Building, 87, MG Road, Fort Mumbai 400001. (Head Office).

4.             Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. BO Sangrur Ranbir College Road, Sangrur (Local Branch Office).

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Manpreet Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For OP NO.2 to 4       :       Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that he availed services of the OPs by getting insured his Toyota Corolla Altis car bearing registration number PB-13-BF-0027 through online from OP number 1 for Rs.6,36,136/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.14,541/- and the policy was valid for the period from 28.7.2020 to 27.7.2021. Further case of complainant is that unfortunately on 13.12.2020, the car in question met with an accident when he was coming back to his home via Chhajli-Sunam Road as suddenly a dog came in front of the car, due to which the complainant lost the control over the car and the car collided with the road side tree and got damaged. The intimation of accident was given to the OP number 4, who after inspection prepared a report. After that the car in question was got repaired from M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd by spending an amount of Rs.1,01,100/-. The grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents to the OPs, the claim amount was not paid. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,01,100/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. On merits, insurance of the vehicle is admitted, but the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP number 1.

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 to 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has filed the present complaint after concealing material facts from this Commission and that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant got insured his car in question. It is further admitted that the complainant intimated on 15.12.2020 about the accident after removing the car from the spot. Thereafter the OP appointed Shri Jatinder Kalra, approved surveyor to assess the loss as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted that the complainant got repaired the car in question from M/s. Globe Automobiles, Bhindra. It is stated that the loss assessed by the surveyor was to the tune of Rs.58,500/-.  Further it has been stated that it is paramount pre-requisition condition for renewal of an insurance policy for a motor vehicle that if there is any break between the previous insurance policy and the proposed insurance policy, then the pre-inspection report of the vehicle proposed to be insured is a must and if there is no pre-inspection report, then the policy shall be treated as void ab-initio and the insurance company has no liability to pay the claim. It is stated further that the complainant was having an insurance policy for the period ending 23.5.2020 from Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited. The complainant did not get his aforesaid car insured after 23.5.2020 till he opted the insurance coverage on renewal basis for the period from 28.7.2020 to 27.7.2021 from the OPs after visiting and using the aforesaid portal, meaning thereby the car in question was insured for the period from 24.5.2020 to 27.7.2021. It is stated further that the car of the complainant suffered accidental damage on Chhajli Sunam Road on 13.12.2020, but as per condition number 4 of the insurance policy in question, the complainant was imperatively duty bound to give intimation immediately in writing, but this fact to the insurance company was informed on 15.12.2020 and that too after removal of the vehicle from the alleged spot of accident to the repairer. So, the claim on delayed intimation is liable to be rejected for breach of policy condition or should be treated as substandard, where the complainant is found eligible for any claim, then only 75% of the claim is payable.  But after receiving the surveyor report, the claim was found to be not payable. Thus, lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP  number 2 has produced Ex.OP2to4/1 to Ex.OP2to4/11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OPs number 2 to 4 and the accident of the vehicle during the subsistence of the insurance policy is also not disputed.   In the present case, the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the car of the complainant was insured earlier for the period from 24.5.2019 to 23.5.2020 with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited and thereafter the car in question was got insured from the OPs number 2 to 4 from 28.7.2020 to 27.7.2021 meaning thereby the car was not having any insurance for the period from 24.5.2020 to 27.7.2020 and if there is any gap then in these cases pre-inspection report is necessary one which was not got done by the complainant.  Another reason for not paying the claim by OPs is that the complainant intimated the loss on 15.12.2020 whereas the accident took place on 13.12.2020 and the vehicle was removed from the spot i.e. place of accident.   

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of documents placed on the file, we find that the claim is genuine one as the insurance of the vehicle and accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy is not denied at all. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant got repaired the car from the approved dealer of Toyota Company vide bill Ex.C-2 and spent an amount of Rs.1,01,100/- on the repairs of the car. Ex.C-3 is the copy of cash receipt issued by Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur showing receipt of payment of Rs.1,01,100/- from the complainant on account of repair of the car in question. Ex.C-6 is the copy of legal notice served upon the OPs on 8.2.2021 and Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 are the postal receipts in original. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 to 4 has argued vehemently that as per the survey report Ex.OP2to4/2 of Shri Jatinder Kumar Kalra the claim is payable to the tune of Rs.58500/- only. The fact remains that the vehicle in question was got repaired from the authorised dealer of the manufacturer and complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.1,01,100/- on the repairs of the car. The OP number 2 to 4 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the car in question was not having any insurance for the period from 24.5.2020 to 27.7.2020  as earlier insurance of the car was expired on 23.5.2020 and if there is any gap then in these cases pre-inspection report is necessary one which was not got done by the complainant. We are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 to 4 as if there was any such requirement of pre-inspection report, then it was their duty to ask the complainant before issuing the policy and only after receiving such a report, the policy should be issued and if the policy was issued to the complainant, then it was open for the OPs number 2 to 4 to cancel the policy issued to the complainant, but nothing like was done by them.  If it is assumed that the policy in question was issued to the complainant without getting pre-inspection report then it was open for the OPs to get the car inspected immediately, but no such steps were ever taken by the OPs number 2 to 4 and only after intimation of accident, it does not lie proper in the mouth of OPs number 2 to 4 to reject the claim on this ground of pre-inspection report of the car in question.   A bare perusal of record reveals that the complainant suffered a loss due to accident which took place on 13.12.2020.  There is no such plea of the OPs number 2 to 4 that the claim is not genuine. In the circumstances, we find that the claim is payable by the Ops number 2 to 4. Moreover, the complainant has got repaired the car in question from the authorised repairer.  It is settled law that the claim is payable as per the bill of the authorised repairer, if the vehicle is got repaired from the authorised repairer. The copy of bill Ex.C-2 of  Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Bhindra, Sangrur is for Rs.1,01,100/-.

8.              We may mention that in the present case, the copy of bill Ex.C-2 shows that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,01,100/- and if the claim is allowed on non standard basis i.e. 75% of the bill, then the claim payable to the complainant comes to the tune of Rs.75,825/-.  Now, we are of the definite opinion that the complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs.75,825/- as discussed above.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 2 to 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.75,825/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.03.2021 till its realisation in full. We further direct them to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                              Pronounced.

                              September 5, 2023.