Haryana

Ambala

CC/359/2021

Subhash Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Inss Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Singh Chuhan

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

 

Complaint case no.	:	359 of 2021.
Date of Institution	:	25.11.2021.
Date of decision	:	09.06.2022.

          Subhash Singh s/o Sh. Aman Kumar, r/o Village and PO Thambar, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

                                                Versus

1.       Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate office Unit no.401, 4^th floor Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharastra, Pincode-400059, through its authorized signatory.

2.       Shri Baljinder Singh Saini, Authorized Agent, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. Railway Road, near Tai Ka Petrol Pump, Barara, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

3.       City Automobiles, 16 Industrial Area, Ambala City through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

          2^nd address: Samrithi Hyundai, Near Vita Milk Plant, Ambala City.

                                                                            ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri J.P Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    OPs No.2& 3 already ex-parte.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To make payment of Rs.66,716/-, charged by the OP No.3 on account of repair charges of car Xcent D HR-54C-7667 of complainant in presence of comprehensive policy No.202077721536 valid w.e.f. 24.11.2020 to 23.11.2021.
2. To grant interest @18% p.a. on the payment of bill from 13.4.2021 till the date of entire payment.
3. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
4. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
5. Grant any other relief if this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

 

2.        Brief facts of the case are that the complainant being owner of the car bearing Registration No.HR-54-C-7667 got comprehensively insured the same with the OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide policy No.202077721536 for a sum assured of Rs.3,06,816/- valid from 24.11.2020 to 23.11.2021. During the existence of the insurance policy on 14.3.2021, when the complainant was on the way from Barara to Dosarka and reached near Bansal Palace the car struck with the road as dirty material was lying on the road. The complainant gave information to OP No.2 being agent of the OP No.1, whereupon the OP No.2 suggested the complainant to take the car with the OP No.3 being authorized service center and it will not charge any amount from the complainant being the car is insured from bumper to bumper and the OP No.3 will itself get the amount from OP No.1.  Accordingly, the complainant got repaired the car from OP No.3, but the OP No.3 refused to deliver the car to the complainant without making payment of repair charges Rs.66716/-. The complainant contacted to the OP No.2and disclosed about the conduct of the OP No.3, the OP No.2 advised to make payment to the OP No.3as per bill and to lodge the claim with the OP No.1.  Finding no alternative, the complainant paid Rs.66716/- to the OP No.3 vide invoice No.983, dated 13.4.2021 and only then, the OP No.3 delivered the car to the complainant. The complainant lodged his claim with the insurance company and contacted to the OPs No.1 and 2 to pay his claim amount, but of no use, moreover, the OP No.1 declined the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.4.2021 regarding claim No.CL2021696970.  The complainant also got served registered legal notice dated 27.5.2021upon the OPs, requesting to make the payment of insurance claim of the complainant, but the OPs have not bothered either to make payment of insurance claim or to reply to the legal notice, despite receipt of legal notice. The act of the OPs tentamounts to negligence, deficiency in service and caused mental agony, harassment as well as financial to the complainant, hence, this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed its written version, while raising some preliminary objections that the present complaint is mis-convinced and untenable; the OP No.1 was bound by terms and conditions of agreement as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Civil Appeal No.1375 of 2003, decided on 8.10.2010 titled as M.s Suraj Mal Ram Niwal Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; an investigator Mr.Sahil Vohra was appointed by the OP No.1 to investigate the incident dated 24.3.2021 as in the claim form date of incident was mentioned as 24.3.2021 and in the claim it was mentioned as 14.3.2021. The complainant removed the vehicle from the spot of accident and photographs of the incident was shared by the complainant. The surveyor submitted his report and concluded "Said loss not accidently in nature with insured’s provided the spot photographs”; the OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.4.2021, “the damages to the vehicle are not correlated with the cause of loss mention in the claim form, damages to the vehicle also not found to be accidental, accident damages verified and circumstances of loss was discussed with you, the loss and damages also not noticed to be accidental”. The complainant in the claim form mentioned the date of accident as 24.3.2021, estimate of repair dated 25.3.2021. The complainant had submitted contrary version in claim form, legal notice & in his complaint, which raised suspicion in the story of the complainant; the complainant has not approached to the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands; this Hon’ble Commission having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; this Hon’ble Commission having no territorial jurisdiction to try the present as the head office of the OP No.1 is at Mumbai; no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant. On merits controvert the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated to the version taken into preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4.           The OPs No.2& 3 failed to appear before this Commission, despite receipt of notice, hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.7.2022 passed by this Commission.
5.           In the course of evidence, learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW.1/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Ankita Bose, Authorized representative of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited as Annexure OP-1 along with documents Annexure OP1/A to Annexure OP1/C and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for the No.1 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant during the course of his arguments reiterated to the version made into the complaint and submitted that after the accident, he gave information to the OP No.2 being agent of the OP No.1 and there was no branch office of OP No.1 at Ambala. As and when the OP No.2 asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from OP No.3, then, only he brought the vehicle to the OP No.3 on 23.3.2021 not on 24.3.2021 as alleged by the OP No.1 and he fairly mentioned the true facts, in the complaint. The OP No.1 instead of making the payment of genuine claim of the complainant, repudiated the same without any reason. While confining the arguments, the counsel for complainant kept reliance on case law reported in II (2022) CPJ 326 (NC) titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
8.           On the other hand the learned counsel for OP No.1 reiterated to the version made into the written statement and denied any liability towards the complainant’s insurance claim.  While confining his arguments, he kept reliance on case law reported in 2003(2) CPC 355 NC titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Winner Chorates (P) Ltd.
9.           The only point of controversy between the parties is, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for or to what extent and against whom?
10.           As per the OP No.1 the complainant has submitted contrary versions in the claim form, legal notice and complaint, which raised suspicion in the story of the complainant.  Further, the OP No.1 alleged that its investigator reported that ‘said loss not accidently in nature with insured’s provided the spot photographs”. To prove the allegations leveled by the OP No.1, it has to place on record investigation report along with sworn affidavit of the investigator, but no investigation report placed on record by the OP No.1, so mere pleading is not sufficient to prove the version taken by the party in the case. So far the question of contrary version taken by the complainant in claim form, legal notice and complaint is concerned, the OP No.1 was duty bound to prove the allegation, while placing on record strict proof such as claim form, but neither the claim form nor any relevant document has been placed on record by the OP No.1 to cement its version. The version of the OP No.1 that there is no branch office of the OP No.1 at Ambala is also cements the version of the complainant as except to give information to the OP No.2 agent of the OP No.1, he had no option, which he has opted.Moreover, from the perusal of contents of complaint as well as legal notice, this Commission is of the firm view the version of the complainant in the complaint as well as in the legal notice is same and the OP No.1 just to avoid its liability from making the payment of genuine claim to the complainant had taken these such unproved allegations, which are not only causing mental agony, harassment to the complainant also causing financial loss to the complainant. It is not only deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, even it is also unfair trade practice on its part.
11.           The OPs No.2 is mere agent and OP No.3 is the service center, so no liability can be fastened upon the OPs No.2 & 3 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OPs No.2 & 3.
12.           In view of the aforesaid discussions, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs No.2 and 3 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it, to make payment of insurance claim of Rs.66,716/- paid by the complainant to the OP No.3 vide bill Annexure C-9 along with interest @4% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint, till realization. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with this order within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of costs as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room.

Announced:- 09.06.2023.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President.