Haryana

StateCommission

A/714/2018

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANANT KUMAR AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      714 of 2018

Date of Institution:      01.06.2018

Date of Decision :       23.07.2018

 

The Regional Manager, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance  Company Limited, Plot No.6, 1^st Floor, Near Metro Pillar No.81, Main Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Anant Kumar s/o Sh. Kaptan Singh, Resident of House No.316, VPO Kurar, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

2.      The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, KD Complex, Opposite Jiwan Nagar, Gurudwara, Old D.C. Road, Sonipat.

                             Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated February 06^th, 2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).    

2.                Ashok Leyland Truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-69B-7662 owned by the complainant was provided insurance policy by Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2 (appellant herein) vide cover note No.9634509 regarding the period from May 11^th, 2015 up to May 10^th, 2016 mentioning the total Insured Declared Value (IDV) as Rs.11,97,000/-. In the month of March, 2016 the insurance policy cover note and few other documents regarding the above mentioned truck vehicle were misplaced and it was in the mind of the complainant that expiry date of the insurance policy was in the month of April, 2016.  In these circumstances, the complainant purchased another insurance policy bearing No.421502/31/16/6300000214 from National Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.1 regarding the period from April 23^rd, 2016 up to April 22^nd, 2017 mentioning the total Insured Declared Value (IDV) as Rs.11,20,000/-. On April 29^th, 2016 when the truck vehicle was being driven by one Joginder driver for transportation of a buffalo from Village Kurar to Village Bhigan, the truck vehicle turned turtle near Village Jahri when the driver tried to save a Nilgai (Blue Bull).  Information was given to the Police of Police Station, Sadar, Sonipat on the same date and entries were made in the Daily Diary Register at Sr.no.19. Information was also given telephonically to the opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is the case of the complainant that he suffered total loss amounting to Rs.16,26,055/- due to this accident. The opposite parties did not make payment of the total amount claimed mentioned above. A legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties on February 20^th, 2017.  National Insurance Company Limited – opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the insurance claim cannot be accepted as the vehicle of the complainant was already insured with the opposite party No.2 - Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited. A legal notice was served upon the opposite party No.2 also on March 10^th, 2017.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to make payment of an amount of Rs.16,26,055/- for the total loss caused to the vehicle; to pay an amount of Rs50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite party No.1 filed its written version taking plea that the above mentioned truck vehicle had already been provided insurance policy by the opposite party No.2 regarding the period from May 11^th, 2015 to May 10^th, 2016. The complainant obtained another insurance policy from the opposite party No.2 on April 23^rd, 2016 with ulterior motive. In fact, on April 23^rd, 2016 the earlier insurance policy was effective. as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), the file of the complainant had already been sent to the opposite parties No.2.  It is not a case of deficiency in service. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                The opposite party No.2 - Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; that the District Forum, Sonipat has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant has concealed material facts from the answering opposite party.  Information was received by the answering opposite party regarding this accident on March 16^th, 2017 whereas the accident took place on April 29^th, 2016. The opposite party No.2 has been deprived from investigation for assessment of the actual loss caused to the truck vehicle. Second insurance policy was provided by the opposite party No.1 regarding the period from April 23^rd, 2016 to April 22^nd, 2016 and as such the second insurer is also liable to pay the amount claimed. Prior to it, the opposite party No.2 had paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on March 24^th, 2016 regarding earlier claim submitted by the complainant. The complainant has not faced any harassment. It is not a case of deficiency in service. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

6.                After hearing arguments vide impugned order dated February 06^th, 2018 the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.9,69,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the impugned order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The opposite party No.2 was also directed to first clear the finance liability of Cholamandlam Investment Finance Company Limited and thereafter the remaining amount be paid to the complainant.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated February 06^th, 2018, the opposite party No.2 - Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited filed the present First Appeal No.714 of 2018 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated February 06^th, 2018 and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

8.                I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the case file.

9.                It is admitted fact that Ashok Leyland truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-69B-7662 was got insured with the opposite party No.2 regarding the period from May 11^th, 2015 up to May 10^th, 2016 mentioning the total Insured Declared Value as Rs.11,97,000/- vide cover note Annexure A-1. It is also admitted fact that the complainant purchased another insurance policy from the National Insurance Company Limited – opposite party No.1 regarding the period from April 23^rd, 2016 up to April 22^nd, 2017 mentioning the Insured Declared Value as Rs.11,20,000/-.  As per version of the complainant, in the month of March, 2016 the insurance policy and few other documents concerned with the insured vehicle were misplaced and it was in his mind that the expiry date of the insurance policy period was in the month of April, 2016. As per version of the complainant, he obtained second insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 – National Insurance Company Limited due to the reason mentioned above.  Anyhow from the record on the file it does not appear that the second insurance policy was obtained by the complainant as a result of any foul play or with the intention to take undue benefits. There appears to be possibilities that second insurance policy was obtained by the complainant due to misunderstanding and in fact the complainant himself is a looser as he had to pay some extra premium amount. When the truck vehicle was already insured up to May 10^th, 2016 certainly there was no necessity to obtain second insurance policy from the National Insurance Company Limited w.e.f. April 23^rd, 2016.  Admittedly, the total Insured Declared Value as mentioned in the second insurance policy was Rs.11,20,000/-.  

10.              Information was given to the Police regarding this accident on the same date at Police Station Sadar Sonipat. The police made entries in the Daily Diary Register at Serial No.19. Information was given regarding this accident to the opposite parties telephonically on the same date. Thereafter, legal notice was also served upon both the parties mentioning total insurance claim of the complainant as Rs.16,26,055/-. Shri R.S. Kohli, was appointed as surveyor by the Insurance Company. The surveyor in his report assessed the net loss caused to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.8,57,000/-. The report of the surveyor appears to be well reasoned and believable. Considering the total loss assessed by the surveyor as Rs.8,57,000/-, it was considered as a case of total loss.  Total Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was considered as Rs.11,20,000/- as mentioned in the second insurance policy before the accident took place. In this situation learned District Forum gave direction to make payment of an amount of Rs.9,69,000/- (total insured declared value Rs.11,20,000/- minus an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as salvage value and Rs.1,000/- under excess clause).

11.              As the truck vehicle was already insured with the opposite party No.2 – Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited till May 10^th, 2016, there was no necessity for the complainant to obtain the second insurance policy from the opposite party No.1-National Insurance Company Limited w.e.f. April 23^rd, 2016.  The opposite party No.2 cannot be allowed to escape from its liability to make payment of the compensation amount to the complainant merely because the complainant obtained second insurance policy. Rather, the opposite party No.1 – National Insurance Company Limited cannot be held liable to make payment of the insurance claim amount as the vehicle was already insured. I have already made observations in the foregoing paragraph that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is to be considered as Rs.11,20,000/- instead of Rs.11,97,000/- as mentioned in the first insurance policy.

12.              As a result as per discussions above in detail, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated February 06^th, 2018 passed by the learned District Forum holding the opposite party No.2 liable to make payment of an amount of Rs.9,69,000/- and that the opposite party No.1 – National Insurance Company Limited is not liable to pay any amount as claimed. Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed in limine.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 23.07.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

CL