Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 553.
Instituted on : 13.11.2018.
Decided on : 24.02.2021.
Shile Singh, age 50 years son of Sh. Dhanpat Singh, resident of village Jindran, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Zonal Office SCO-9 First Floor, Above Central Bank of India, Sector-10, Panchkula through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. SK Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration no.HR46E-5078 which was insured with the respondent Insurance company vide policy no.2315/58204383/00/000 for a period from 6.2.2018 to 5.2.2019. On 20.4.2018, the driver of complainant was coming from Lakhan Majra to Rohtak by driving vehicle in question and he reached near village Bhagwatipur then an unknown vehicle came from opposite side and during the process of crossing, has dashed in the side of complainant’s vehicle and caused damage into the body of vehicle of complainant. No one has suffered any injury in this incident, due to which the matter was not reported to the police. In this regard, the complainant informed the officials of respondent and surveyor inspected the vehicle in question and asked the complainant to repair the vehicle. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.80518/- on the repair of vehicle in question. The complainant applied for the claim with the opposite party vide claim no.CL18007471 and submitted all the relevant documents as desired by the officials of the opposite party. But the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 24.05.2018 on the ground that the complainant was not having road tax valid at the time of accident. The complainant approached to the officials of opposite party and requested them to disburse the claim amount in his favour but despite his repeated requests, the opposite party did not disburse the claim amount. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.80,518/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that on the receipt of the claim intimation regarding the loss of the vehicle on 20.04.2018, answering respondent registered the present claim with claim no. CL18007471 and the same was communicated to the complainant for better correspondence as regard to the loss to the vehicle and respondent appointed an independent/IRDA approved surveyor Jugal Kishore Duneja, who submitted his detailed report showing the liability on the part of the insurance company to an amount of Rs.53,760/- but the amount assessed by the Independent surveyor was not paid as the vehicle in question was being plied on the road, in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act, as the vehicle in question was not having valid road tax on the date of accident. The factum regarding vehicle having no road tax on the date of accident has not been rebutted by the complainant in his complaint. It is wrong and denied that complainant has spent an amount of Rs.80,518/- as alleged on the repair of the vehicle. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.01.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party only on the ground that road tax has not been deposited by the complainant regarding the vehicle in question. As per Ex.C6, a road tax of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-46-E-5078 was deposited upto 31.12.2018. As per document Annexure-JN-C placed on record at the time of arguments, itself shows that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.16890/- alongwith penalty amounting to Rs.3050/- before the concerned department as road tax regarding the vehicle no.HR-46E-5078. It has been argued by the complainant counsel that the complainant has deposited the road tax well within time but if he was depositing the same before the concerned authority belatedly, in that situation he deposited the penalty amount alongwith road tax amount. Hence there is minor discrepancy in depositing the road tax belatedly and there is no impact of the same on the main case, whereas other taxes & permit fee etc. have already been paid. Ex.R5 itself shows that road tax has been paid upto 30.09.2018 vide receipt dated 24.04.2018 whereas the accident took place on 20.04.2018.
6. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the original bills have not been placed on record by the complainant before the insurance company for assessment of loss. On the other hand, a bare perusal of repudiation letter Ex.C5 itself shows that the claim of the complainant has been denied by the insurance company simply on the ground that the surveyor has assessed the claim of the complainant and observed that road tax has not been valid at the material time of accident. Hence the claim is not tenable under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In these circumstances it can be easily presumed that claim of the complainant was denied only regarding the road tax and other formalities have already been completed by the complainant well within time. Hence the repudiation of the claim on this ground is illegal and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount.
7. The complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.80578/- after considering Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On the other hand, surveyor report has been placed on record as Ex.R4, as per which the total parts cost including tax and other levies comes to Rs.62208/- and total labor including tax comes to Rs.12508/- and the total amount comes to Rs.74716/-. There is no document placed on record to show that the policy was a zero dep. Policy and in that condition the insurance company has deducted an amount of Rs.2496/-(10%)on account of depreciation on metallic parts and Rs.12960/-(50%) on account of depreciation on plastic parts. In this way total amount after deduction of depreciation comes to Rs.46752/- and labour has been assessed as Rs.12508/-. Salvage has been deducted as Rs.4000/- and excess clause Rs.1500/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. As such the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.53760/- which is well reasoned and no interference is required.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.53760/-(Rupees fifty three thousand seven hundred and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five 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.
9. 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:
24.02.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
