Punjab

Sangrur

CC/457/2017

Gursewak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Kaler

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  457

                                                Instituted on:    07.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.02.2018

 

Gursewak Singh son of Mahar Singh, R/O Village Roglan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office 1^st Floor, SCO 350/351-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.             Raj Vehicle, Mehlan Road, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1  :       Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

 

1.             Shri Gursewak Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his Mahindra KUV-100 car bearing registration number PB-13-AU-4273 from the Op number 1 through OP number 2 for Rs.5,29,000/- for the period from 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2017 under policy number 12247746, as such has claimed to be the consumer of the OP number 1.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 26.3.2017 with another car bearing registration number HR-14-H-6996, as the same struck behind the vehicle of the complainant.  Since the car suffered major loss, as it was treated as a total loss. The complainant intimated the Ops about the accident and the Ops appointed surveyor to assess the loss, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 8.6.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.5,29,378/-  along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is totally false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been filed only to get undue benefits at the cost of the OP and the complainant has suppressed material and true facts from this Forum.  That the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle is registered as a private car and the policy in question was under private car package policy, whereas as per the evidence collected during investigation, it has been found that at the time of accident the vehicle was being plied by the complainant on hire/rent basis with PRTC Patiala, therefore, there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle in question met with an accident, intimation of which was also received and after receipt of the intimation, the OP appointed Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, IRDA approved surveyor and found that the vehicle has run 52078 KM in six months. In the report the surveyor has intimated that the vehicle was being run with the PRTC Patiala on rent. The surveyor has also mentioned in the report that the insured is not getting his vehicle repaired, therefore, the liability has been assessed without dismantling and repair of the vehicle based on the estimate provided by the OP number 2 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,27,992/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1  to Ex.OP-26 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OP number 1 for Rs.5,29,000/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance cover note, which is on record as Ex.C-3 and it further reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.24,605/- as premium for getting the vehicle comprehensively insured.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 26.03.2017 on the way when the vehicle was coming from Delhi, of which FIR was recorded in Police Station Sadar Karnal, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-6.  However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the plying of the vehicle in question by the complainant as a taxi with the PRTC Patiala, whereas the vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as per the contention of the learned counsel for the OP number 1.

 

7.             It is worth mentioning here that in the present case, the repudiation of the claim has been done by the OP number 1 only on the ground that the vehicle was being plied as a taxi by the complainant, whereas the vehicle was insured being a private one with the OP number 1. This averment of the OP number 1 is also supported by the affidavit Ex.OP1/2 of Shri Kashmir Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Royal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the vehicle was being plied as a taxi with PRTC on rent basis. It is beyond any doubt that the vehicle in question was being used as a taxi with the PRTC Patiala on rent basis.  Now, the question, which arises for determination is whether in this case, the claim is payable or not. It is no doubt true that the complainant got insured the vehicle as a private one and used the same for hire reward purposes, but even then the OP number 1 is liable to pay the claim on non standard basis, which option the OP number 1 has not considered to settle the claim of the complainant. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nitin Khandelwal 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 193 (Supreme Court), wherein it has been held that if the insured vehicle was being used as a taxi and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, then the insurance is required to settle the claim on non standard basis and the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft. Further the same view ha been also taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Vijay Kumar Digambarappa Khanpure versus Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2016(2) CLT 148 (NC). As such, we feel that the claim of the complainant cannot be denied in toto.

 

8.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  Though the complainant has claimed the claim on total loss basis, but he has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish this point. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced the survey report of Er. Sanjiv Kumar Verma, Ex.OP1/6, wherein he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,27,992/- on repair basis, as such, we will go with this report and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant 75% of the amount of Rs.2,27,992/- to the complainant, which comes to Rs.1,70,994/-.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

10.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,70,994/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.09.2017 till realisation. We further order the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 13, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member