Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/1/2018

Arjun Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 1/2018

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Arjun Pradhan,

S/o- Padmanava Pradhan

At- Bhaktimandap, Bural Po/Ps-Burla       ,

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                                      …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.,

At: Dare House 2^nd Floor No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Chennai 600001, India

2. Manager (Operation),

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

At: 1st Floor, Hari Niwas Tower 163,

Thambu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner,

Chennai-600001, India.

3. Susmita Kunjur,

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. A 1

          1^st floor, JBS Complex, Udit Nagar, Near RTO

and SP Office , Rourkela-4,

Dist- Sundargarh (Odisha).

4. Pradip Rout, General Manager,

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. A 1,

1st Floor, JBS Complex, Udit Nagar, Near RTO and SP office,

Rourkela-4, Dist- Sundargarh (Odisha).                        ..….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :-Sri. G.P.Lal, Advocate & associates
2. For the O.P.s                    :- Sri. B.K.Purohit, Advocate

DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :05.07.2022

Presented by Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, MEMBER

1. The Brief facts of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased one Bolero Plus of Mahindra Company on dt; 25.01.2017 bearing Engine No. GRG4M85503 and Chasis No. MAIXC2GRKH5A39716. After purchase the above vehicle being insured before the O.P No. 1 through the O.P No. 3. In the RC Book and in the application form type of the vehicle has been mentioned as “private owner use” but the O P No. 3 without properly verifying the application form and R.C. Book fraudulently insured the vehicle in “commercial use” category instead of “private owner use” category and took an amount Rs. 31,301/- towards premium amount which is illegal as well as unfair trade practice. If the vehicle was insured under “private own use” category the complainant would have to pay Rs. 18,000/- as premium amount instead of Rs. 31,301/- and for this act the complainant had suffered a straight loss of Rs. 13,301/- as because of the irresponsible and unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. The O.Ps had cheated the complainant with an ulterior motive for wrongful gain. The dispute arose when the vehicle met with an accident on dt. 6.11.2017 and the complainant approached the O.P with a claim to repair the vehicle but the O P party did not take any step to repair it rather they harassed him making him to run from pilar to past. Finally they explained their inability on the pretext that the vehicle is insured under “commercial use” category. Finding no other way the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized service centre at Bargarh and the total expenditure borne by himself was Rs. 58,000/- but the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 34,859/-.The proof of the expenditure is also attached with the complaint petition by the Complainant. The complainant informed the matter to the O P No. 2 and 4 but they had also not taken any steps in this regard.  The complainant had kept the vehicle in the authorized garage of the O.P No. 1 and due to negligence of the O.P the complainant bears a loss of Rs. 10,000/- as the ground rent. The complainant informed the matter to the O.P No. 3 and 4 but they totally denied about it and suggested him to bring the vehicle to Rourkela which was impossible for the complainant and when the complainant requested them then they were suggested him to send the vehicle to the authorized garage at Bargarh. The complainant again took the vehicle to Bargarh and informed to the O.Ps but they did not take any steps to repair the vehicle. The Branch Manager of the service station, Bargarh suggested the complainant to give a written authorization to repair the vehicle and cost will be borne by the complainant himself. As such the complainant authorized the Branch Manager to repair the vehicle and the expenditure will be borne by him and after getting the permission from the complainant the vehicle of the complainant was repaired. As per the complaint petition if as per GR 34 of the India motor insurance in the country and is formulated by the Tarriff Advisory Committee constituted under IRDA, which is the regulating authority of insurance business in the country, it is not permissible to insure any vehicle for a purpose other than that permitted by the R.T.A concerned, the burden lies on the opposite party to proof the same that when all the documents shows the category of the vehicle is “private owner use” how could the vehicle was insured under “commercial use” category ? While the complainant had submitted documents and filled up form under the category of “private own use” the O.P had insured the vehicle under the “commercial use category” illegally, fraudulently and with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The O.PS had fraudulently grabbed the extra money from the pocket of the complainant which shows the unfair practice of the O.Ps to cheat an innocent person with malafide intention.
2. The advocate for the O.Ps appeared for the O.Ps and gave written version of the O.P No. 1 that the O.P no. 1, Insurance Company is a Body Corporate and carries on General Insurance Business in India and the Assistant manager-Claims (Legal), Bhubaneswar is the duly Authorised Officer of the Insurance Company to represent the Company within the State of Odisha which includes the District of Sambalpur. The O.P was submitted that one passenger Carrying package Policy of Insurance bearing No. 3373/00480447/000/00 was issued by the Rourkela Branch of the Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. In favour of the complainant and this policy was valid from 17:40 hours of 27.01.2017 to the midnight of 26.01.2018. This policy was issued subject to conditions and limitations mentioned in the Policy itself and those terms, conditions, warranties, exclusions form part of the contract between the insured and the insurer and no party the contrct can violate those conditions.

During the currency of the Policy, the insured intimated that there was damage to the vehicle on 06.11.2017 in an accident. The claim was registered, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed to assess the loss as per the law and the vehicle was taken to the garage by the complainant for repair. The Surveyor & Loss Assessor assessed the loss at Rs. 34, 859/- but while analyzing the claim, it came to the notice of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was registered as a Private Vehicle and the Policy condition as per GR-34 of the India Motor Tariff which is the Policy of the Motor Insurance in the country and is formulated by the Tariff Advisory Committee constituted under IRDA, which is the regulating authority of insurance business in the country. Therefore, the insurance Company vide Registered Letter dated 26.11.2017 intimated the insured that as the complainant violated the Policy condition, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. As per the written version of the O.P No.1 that a sum of Rs. 58,000/- was not spent for repairing of the vehicle and also there was no any negligent act of the OP in dealing with the Claim of the Complainant. Due to the own fault the complainant was made to suffer because in spite of the issuance of Policy from 27.01.2017, the insured did not intimate the Insurance Company about the classification of Policy but when the Insurance Company repudiated, he has come up with this false case in order to take advantage of the situation and piloting a false story. The complainant himself who had proposed the Policy to be a “Commercial Vehicle Policy” and now he cannot say that he did not proposed the same. Since the Policy condition was violated, the complainant is projecting a false story. There is no deficiency in rendering services or adoption of unfair trade practice by the O.P No.1.

3. Though as per the term and condition of India Motor Tariff GR. 34. “It is not permissible to insure any vehicle for use for a purpose other than that permitted by the RTA concerned”, in this case it is found in the documents submitted by the complainant that In the RC Book and in the application form type of the vehicle has been mentioned as “private owner use” but the agent/authorised person  of the O Ps  without properly verifying the application form and R.C. Book,  wrongly entred private carrier instead of private car and insured the vehicle in “commercial use” category instead of “private owner use” category and took an amount Rs. 31,301/- towards premium amount instead of Rs. 18,000/-. Further the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 34,859/- but the expenditure slip attached with the complaint petition by the Complainant given by the Krishna Automotive who is the authorised service centre of the Ops, revealed that a sum of Rs. 58,000/- was spent for repairing of the vehicle by the complainant. So it is the negligence of the O.ps.
6698606.  

Therefore it is ordered to the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs. 58,000/- toward repairing expenditure of the vehicle, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for mental tension and harassment and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- toward litigation cost within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of July, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.