Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 260
Instituted on : 29.04.2022
Decided on : 23.08.2023
Daya Krishan s/o Ram Gopal R/o Pana Daalyaan, Village Sanghi(83), Tehsil & District Rohtak. At present residing at H.No.173/4, Rajender Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rohtak Division Office, 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager/Officer(Insurer of Tata Tiago) Car No.-HR12AD-1345, Policy No. 12220031210350000743 Policy Period w.e.f. 29/05/2021 to 28/05/2022.
- M/s Rama Auto Cars, Sukhpura Chowk (Tata Motors Cars Showroom) Ground Floor, Northern Bypass Sukhpura Chowk Rohtak-124001, through its Manager/Authorized Representative …….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. D.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party no. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant is owner of vehicle i.e. Tata Tiago Car bearing registration No.HR-12-AD-1345 and the opposite party no. 2 is the seller of the said vehicle from where the alleged car was got insured vide policy no.12220031210350000743 w.e.f 29.05.2021 to 28.05.2022 by the opposite party no. 2 from opposite party no. 1. The IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.3,05,210/- and a premium of Rs.9891/- was paid by the complainant to opposite party no.1. On 07.01.2022, when the complainant was coming from Manikaran to his home, the car was driven by him and in the meanwhile a stray cattle appeared on the road in front of his car. He applied the break but due to rainy weather, he could not control his car. The car slipped in a roadside rainy drain and was totally damaged. The complainant intimated the incident to the insurer as well as to M/s Rama Auto Cars, Sukhpura Chowk. Thereafter on the direction of opposite party no. 2, the complainant lifted his car from the accident site to the workshop of opposite party no. 2. He paid Rs.26,000/- to M/s Parvati Sangam Goods Carrier for lifting his vehicle. Complainant submitted all his papers as per demand of opposite parties and filed a claim with opposite party no. 1. Thereafter the complainant contacted the officials of opposite parties personally or telephonically regarding settlement of the claim but they did not pay any heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant. As such, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to pay IDV amount i.e. Rs.3,05,210/- alongwith Rs.26,000/- on account of vehicle lifting charges alongwith 18% per annum w.e.f date of accident. Opposite party no.1 be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- for litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in his reply submitted that the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 07.01.2022 and the complainant given intimation after 5 days of the accident. This is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. So, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that after getting the intimation from the complainant, they appointed Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma independent Surveyor and loss assessor Rohtak who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss Rs.2,03,842/- on net of salvage basis without RC and submitted his report in the office of the opposite party and the claim was in the legal process. But the complainant has filed the complaint before its settlement/decision by the opposite party. It is also submitted that the complainant has not supplied the receipt of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.6,000/- to the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is pre-mature and all the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. However, opposite party no. 2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.06.2022 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A , documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.12.2022. Complainant also tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/B on 19.06.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per written statement and affidavit filed by the respondent insurance company the intimation regarding the loss has been given to the insurance company after 5 days and the same is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Regarding the delayed intimation to the company, we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.1069 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2022 titled as Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 decided on 13.09.2021 in case titled as Dharamender Vs. UIIC, as well as Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,. The law cited above, are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and repudiation on this ground is illegal. After receiving the information the insurance company deputed the surveyor for assessing the loss in the vehicle in question. The surveyor Dinesh Kumar Sharma as per his survey report Ex.R1 has assessed the loss on repair basis Rs.441000/-, after deducting the policy clause Rs.1000/- and salvage value Rs.10925/-, on total loss basis Rs.304210/- after deducing the excess clause Rs.1000/- and on net of salvage value basis without RC Rs.203842/- after deducting the wreck value Rs.42000/- and Rs.1000/- as excess clause. As per opinion of the surveyor the claim should be settled on net of salvage basis without RC. Perusal of this survey report itself shows that the IDV value of the vehicle has been corrected by the surveyor as Rs.246842/- without any reason. As per policy Ex.C1, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.305210/- so we consider the IDV value as Rs.305210/- and salvage value as Rs.42000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the IDV of vehicle after deducting the salvage value of Rs.40000/- i.e. Rs.265210/- without RC.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.265210/-(Rupees two lac sixty five thousand two hundred and ten only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.04.2022 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 decision. Complainant is further directed to complete the formalities e.g. write a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 23.08.2023 of this Commission within one month.
7. 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:
23.08.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member
