DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 347 of 30-12-2019

Decided on : 26-08-2022

Shant Goyal aged about 39 years S/o Surinder Goyal @ Surinder Kumar, R/o #9, Gandhi Nagar, Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda-151103. ...........Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O.: MCB No.Z-2-11786/001, 1st Floor, Natha Singh Tower, 100 ft. Road, Near Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda-151101, through its Divisional Manager.

..........Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh.Sahil Bansal, Advocate.

For opposite party : Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:-

The complainant Shant Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against United India Insurance (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his vehicle Mahindra Bolero Pick Up bearing registration No.P13-32-K-7544 was comprehensively insured (Package Policy) vide Insurance Policy No. 2004053118P109227702 w.e.f. 16.10.2018 to 15.10.2019 for the IDV of Rs.4,00,000/- with the opposite party.

It is alleged that on 14.05.2019 at about 6.30. p.m. Ranjeet Singh driver of the complainant was driving the vehicle and suddenly a stray animal came in front of the vehicle and struck with the complainant's vehicle at Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda. The complainant intimated the opposite party and they appointed Surveyor Er. Yashwinder Goyal who visited the spot on the very next day i.e. 15.05.2019. The complainant under the instructions of the opposite party and above said surveyor, shifted the vehicle from the spot to Deepu Automobile, Rampura and estimate to the tune of Rs.82,266/- was provided to the surveyor.

The complainant alleged that vehicle was repaired under the instructions and supervision of the surveyor but at the time of payment to repairer, the opposite party did not pay single penny to the service centre and complainant paid total amount of Rs. 82,266/- from his own pocket. At the time of survey, the surveyor of the opposite party under coercive method obtained Signatures of the complainant on blank claim Form, different five-six blank papers, Blank Vouchers, blank consent Form and blank full and final voucher on the assurance that full claim will be paid after depreciation clause as per GR-9 of the IMT.

It is alleged that in this insurance 40% on metal and 50% depreciation on plastic parts applicable as per IMT GR-9 and no depreciation applicable on labour but the opposite party and surveyor prepared the report against the rule and law. The complainant inquired many times regarding his claim from the office of the opposite party, but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply and sitting over the claim of the complainant. Due to non-payment of claim of Rs. 82,266/- the complainant has suffered mental agony and pains for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The opposite party issued No Claim letter on 04-09-2019 to complainant on illegal ground that the claim is repudiated for want of fitness certificate. The said ground is totally illegal, null and void.

On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay to him claim amount of Rs.82,266/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. alongwith Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.

Upon notice, the opposite party put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that intricate questions or law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as opposite party.

It is pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that the opposite party after lodging claim by complainant, wrote letters dated 21.08.2019 and 04.09.2019 to the complainant for submission of fitness certificate of the vehicle and also valid driving license, but the complainant failed to submit the valid fitness of the vehicle in question, hence the claim of the complainant closed.

Further legal objections are that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

On merits, the opposite party has pleaded that the complaint regarding ownership and insurance of vehicle in question and its validity are matter of record. However, the insurance is subject to terms and conditions. It is denied that the complainant shifted the vehicle in question from the spot to Deepu Automobile, Rampura under the instructions of the opposite party or surveyor. Rather the complainant shifted the vehicle in question at his own. However, the loss of the vehicle of the complainant was got assessed from Er Yashwinder Goyal and he after inspecting the vehicle and applying depreciation, assessed the loss at Rs.18,660/-. It is denied that the complainant provided any estimate to the tune of Rs.82,266/- to the opposite party. The alleged estimate is totally false and manipulated by the complainant in connivance with the officials of Deepu Automobile. It has been pleaded that the complainant has not submitted fitness certificate despite letters dated 21.08.2019 and 04.09.2019. It is denied that at the time of survey, the surveyor of opposite party obtained signatures of the complainant on any blank claim form or five-six blank papers, blank vouchers, blank consent form or blank full and final voucher under any undue influence.

It has been further pleaded that opposite party wrote letters dated 21.08.2019 and 04.09.2019 to the complainant for submission of documents but the complainant failed to submit the documents. It is denied that the opposite party decided the claim of the complainant on any illegal ground rather the same was repudiated legally as the complainant failed to submit the fitness certificate. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit dated 21.12.2019 (Ex.C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7).

In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh Senior Divisional Manager dated 27-02-2020 (Ex.OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/5).

The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their version as pleaded in their respective pleadings.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

In the case in hand, the opposite party has not paid the claim to the complainant on the ground, as mentioned in letter dated 4-9-2019 (Ex. OP-1/4) that complainant did not submit fitness of the vehicle in question.

Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled G Kothainachair Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors., cited as IV (2007)CPJ 347 (NC) has held that :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Insurance – Motor Accident – Reimbursement of loss/damage – Claim repudiated – Contention vehicle not having fitness certificate on date of accident – Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act violated – Insured not entitled to have reimbursement from Insurance Company – Contention not acceptable – Claim allowed by Forum on basis of Surveyor's assessment – Compenstion for mental agony and cost awarded – Order set aside in appeal – Hence revision – Insurance is matter of contract between parties – Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim when there is no breach of policy conditions.”

Moreover, in the case in hand, the vehicle in question met with accident as stray animal came in front of the vehicle and accident occured without any mechanical breakdown of insured vehicle. In such circumstances, closing the claim file of the complainant as 'No Claim' amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the claim amount as assessed by surveyor.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 18,660/- (As assessed by surveyor) with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of letter dated 04-09-2019 till payment.

The compliance of this order be made by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to Covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.

Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced :

26-08-2022

President

(Paramjeet Kaur)

Member

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)