The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased a New Mahindra Scorpio S-11 car from opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) No.3 on 16.01.2019 bearing registration No.HR06AS-4411 having chassis No.K2A12969 and Engine No.WRK4A10782. The date of registration was 02.04.2019. The complainant got insured the car vide the policy No.1123003118P113369389 with Ops No.1 and 2 for the period from 16.01.2019 to 15.01.2020 from its policy servicing branch, Karnal and paid the premium of Rs.57,849/-. The said policy covers the vehicle own damage plus third party coverage. At the time of issuance of the policy, the authorized person of the Ops No.1 and 2 had told and assured the complainant that the car was insured for all sort of its own damage and that the claim, if any, shall be immediately settled and paid without any hassle. On 23.09.2019, the complainant had gone from Panipat to a temple in his village near village Babarpur, Panipat and due to no road to the temple in the village, the complainant parked the car on the roadside. When the complainant came back, the car was found completely damaged. The complainant called for the crane and the car was lifted to OP No.3 for repair. After few days, the car sent by OP No.3 to P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Karnal. During inspection of the car, service/repair quotation of Rs.16,38,612/- was made to complainant on 30.09.2019 and Ops No.1 and 2 was informed by them in this regard. The Ops No.1 and 2 appointed Bharat Associates as insurance investigator into the said claim. The said investigator vide letter dated 25.11.2019 wrote to the complainant denying the circumstances on the ground that the complainant did not submit the crane bill and the crane’s toll plaza payment receipts by stating that:

“the damage to the vehicle appear to be major and the circumstances do not justify the loss, that it shall not be feasible for us to justify our investigation for want of requisite documents”.

                    The complainant had contacted and furnished the entire documents as required by Ops No.1 and 2 and visited many times for claim but the Ops prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter the complainant got served legal notice dated 06.02.2020 upon the Ops  and on 14.02.220 the said notice was replied by Op No.2 intimating that the claim of the complainant stood repudiated due to violation of conditions No.1 and 4 of the insurance policy. It is pertinent to mention here that as regards repudiation of the claim on the ground of violating condition No.4 of the policy, the OP No.2 has no basis or evidence to say that reasonable steps from loss or damage was not taken by complainant. Due to this act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has come to this Commission with prayer to direct the following directions to  Ops

1. Repair Bill                                                            :         Rs.14,25,000.00/-
2. Harassment and Mental Agony                                     :         Rs.1,00,000.00/-
3. Damages on account on non availability

of car and loss to business                                   :         Rs.1,00,000.00/- 

4. Present Litigation legal fee and expenses             :         Rs.1,00,000.00/-

2.                Upon notice, opposite parties No. 1 and 2  appeared and filed their joint written statement but none appeared on behalf of OP No.3, hence OP No.3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 22.09.2020.

3.                In written statement, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 took preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is submitted that the damage to the vehicle caused on 23.09.2019 and the company was intimated on 30.09.2019 i.e. after a delay of 7 days and as per condition No.1 of the policy, intimation of the accident has to be given to the company immediately but the intimation was given at a delayed stage and also there is non-cooperation by the complainant. Further as per the condition No.4 of the insurance policy held by the complainant/insured, the insured has to take all the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The vehicle was left unattended without proper precaution being to the prevent damage or loss. It is further submitted that vehicle was damaged and no police report has been lodged. As per claim form the accident took place just ahead of Kohand and prior to a little distance from Gharaunda whereas the accident took place near Babarpur even prior to Kohand which is again manipulation of place. Furthermore, the vehicle was parked on the wrong side of the road, which is violation of motor vehicle rules. As per the investigator “the damage to the vehicle appear to be major and the circumstances do not justify the loss, that it shall not be feasible for us to justify our investigation for want of requisite documents”. On receiving the delayed intimation, the loss surveyor was appointed who had assessed the loss at Rs.6,70,000/- but reported that the loss is no co-related with cause and nature of accident and as such claim not payable and repudiation vide letter dated 31.07.2020.  .

4.                In order to prove the allegations, the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence after tendering the following documents;

5.                On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 and 2 in evidence filed the affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Mukesh Soni, Senior Divisional Manager and affidavit Ex.RW2/A of A.P. Chawla, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and closed the evidence after tendering the following documents;

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

7.                The complainant had purchased vehicle No. HR06AS-4411 on 16.01.12019 vide document Ex.C1 for Rs.15,17,724/-. The complainant has produced registration certificate of the vehicle as Ex.C2. This vehicle was insured with opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide insurance policy Ex.C3 for IDV of Rs.14,25,000/- w.e.f. 16.01.2019 to 15.01.2020.

8.                It has alleged by the complainant that on 23.09.2019, he had gone from Panipat to temple near village Babarpur, Panipat in the said car and due to no road to the temple in the village, the complainant parked the car on the roadside in the service lane and went to the temple. When he came back, the car was found completely damaged and the car was brought through a crane for repair with respondent No.3 who gave estimate of Rs.16,38,612/- Ex.C4 and thereafter he lodged claim alongwith estimate as per claim form Ex.R11. The insurance company deputed investigator Bharat Associates who investigated the factum of accident vide his report Ex.R3 dated 17.12.2019 and concluded that the multiple damages to this Scorpio car cannot occur in a manner as claimed. The insured has also contradicted the place of accident and there is violation of condition No.1 and 4 of Insurance Policy. The insurance company has also deputed surveyor and loss assessor A.P. Chawla who submitted his report Ex.R8 on 17.01.2020 and assessed net liability of the insurance company as Rs.6,70,000/- with the observations that cause of loss is not co-related with cause and nature of accident i.e. multiple damages to the said vehicle. The insured has also contradicted the place of accident. As per investigation report, the insured has also failed to substantiate the claim of his Scorpio, however he had assessed the loss as detailed given in report Ex.R8. The surveyor and loss assessor has filed sworn affidavit Ex.RW2/A whereby he has proved his report Ex.R8. On perusal of investigation report Ex.R3 and surveyor and loss assessor report Ex.R8, there are no specific findings why the damages did not co-relate with the manner of accident. The complainant has nowhere given the manner of accident but claimed that he had parked his vehicle on service lane roadside and went to the temple and came out after sometime his vehicle was found damaged. Therefore co-relation with cause and nature of accident is not reasonable cause for repudiation of the claim of the complainant.

9.                As per repudiation letter Ex.R9 dated 31.07.2020, the claim was repudiated as the complainant has committed violation of condition No.1 and 4 of the insurance policy as the insurance company was not immediately informed about the loss and the delay in intimation is violation of the conditions No.1. The opposite parties have produced motor claim intimation form Ex.R2 which is dated 28.09.2019 and the damage was caused on 23.09.2019. The insurance company has nowhere stated what prejudice has been caused to the insurance company when proper investigation has also been got conducted and surveyor and loss assessor has also inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss. Further what safeguard was required to be maintained by the complainant in the given fact and circumstances of this case and moreso the insured taking insurance policy is not expected to keep security man to safeguard the vehicle. In this case, the vehicle was parked unattended on the side of service lane when he visited the temple and the plea of violation of condition No.4 of the insurance policy cannot be accepted as set up by the insurance company in this case. Therefore the deposition made by Mukesh Soni, Senior Divisional Manager in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A cannot be accepted.

10.              The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.14,25,000/- which is IDV value of the vehicle despite the fact that he has got repaired the vehicle and now using the vehicle. Since the expert of the insurance company vide his report Ex.R8 has assessed the loss as Rs.6,70,000/- and this report is to be believed by this Commission as there is no cogent and convincing evidence led by the complainant to rebut this evidence and therefore, the complainant is entitled to reimburse of Rs.6,70,000/- as repair cost of the vehicle and present complaint is liable to be accepted partly.

11.              For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 as under;

1. To pay Rs.6,70,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs Seventy Thousand Only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the institution of this complaint till realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant for causing physical harassment and mental agony besides Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five thousand five hundred only)  as litigation expenses.

12.              The above ordered amount shall be paid by the rspondents/opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13.              Miscellaneous application(s), if pending, be disposed off in view of this order.

14.              This complaint qua respondent/opposite party No.3 stands dismissed.

15.               This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record-room.