Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/342

Harvinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandal M/S General Insurance Co LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Manpreet Singh

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

          

                                                                         RBT Complaint No. 342

 Instituted on:  27.08.2018

                                                                          Decided on  :  23.11.2023       

 

1. Harvinder Kumar aged about 40 years S/o Krishan Lal R/o village Majal Kalan Tehsil & District Patiala.                                          

                                                          …. Complainant.  

                                                   Versus

1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd through Branch manager through Manager M/s Indusind Bank Ltd having office at Indira Kumari Scheme S.C.F 6,7 Bhupindra Road, Patiala ( as the insurance policy was done by the Loanee Bank i.e. M/s Indusind Bank Ltd having office at Indira Kumari Scheme S.C.F. 6,7 Bhupindra Road, Patiala). Having office at Patiala 2^nd Floor SCO No. 14-15, Leela Bhawan Patiala.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company Ltd., having registered office at 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-6000001, through its charge.
3. M/s Indusind Bank Ltd having office at Indira Kumari Scheme S.C.F 6,7 Bhupindra Road, Patiala. 

 

                                                            ….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

 

For the complainant  : Shri Manpreet Singh, Adv.              

For the Ops 1&2       : Shri Amit Gupta, Adv.

ORDER BY

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

As per orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, vide Endst.No 10226 dated 26.11.2021, the present file received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala vide receipt no.481 dated 30.11.2021 to this Commission.

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that complainant purchased a six seated car for his family use after getting it financed from Op.3 and insurance of the said car bearing number PB-30R-3769 make tavera was done by Op.3 in order to save secure loan from any unavoidable loss in future. Previous insurance Policy was valid for the period 29.7.2016 to 28.7.2017 and subsequent policy of the car valid from 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018. The car in question catch fire and damaged later on 11.6.2018, when it was covered under insurance. Before getting the car insured the agents of Ops gave assurance to the complainant that in case of any miss happening then Ops can settled the claim in cash within 24 hours after getting the bills of repair. Complainant paid Rs. 25,491/- and got insured his car with Op.1 and Op.2. Everything was going quite good. However, the insured car in question on 11.6.2018 suddenly, catch fire while brother of the complainant was coming from Rajpura to Patiala alongwith his family. The complaint lodged with police station Sanour. The intimation with regard to accident of car was given at helpline number pasted on policy. The surveyor of Op.1 and Op.2 inspected the car and with a promise to pay the value of the damaged car obtained signature of the complainant on blank typed papers. The value of the car was assessed of Rs. 2,88,000/-, when it was insured for the year 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018. The claim was lodged by complainant with the company head office and the same was entertained in the office of Op.1 and Op.2 vide claim number 3373048523. The Op repudiated the claim dated 10.7.2018 on the ground that the car in question does not contain fitness certificate. The car was used for individual purpose and not for any commercial activity as such no fitness certificate was required. Moreover, no fitness certificate was demanded at the time of insurance of vehicle, the act of insurance company comes under unfair trade practice and lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and Ops may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 2,88,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant jointly and severally. Any additional or alternative relief which this Forum/Commission may deem fit.
2. Upon notice, Op.3 intentionally did not appear and proceeded exparte vide separate detailed order dated 09.11.2018. Op.1 and Op.2 appeared and filed joint written reply and taking preliminary objection that the complainant has obtained one passenger carrying package insurance policy number 3373/004666400/000/01 of vehicle (tavera) number PB-30R-3769 for the period of 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018 from Op.1 and Op.2 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The intimation was given on 11.6.2018 on account of loss of the vehicle with fire due to short circuit. Company has deputed IRDA approved surveyor Sh. Mahesh Chander Sharma to access the loss in question. Applicant has failed to produce the fitness and valid permit at the time of accident in spite of many demands and ultimately the claim of the applicant was closed on 10.7.2018 for want of violation of valid permit and valid fitness. The insured vehicle was commercial vehicle. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed on a better pedestal vis-à-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. On merits, as per the registration certificate of the vehicle in question is a maxi-cab used for carrying passengers on hire and reward basis, which was got insured by the complainant from 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018. The remaining allegations as alleged by complainant in his complaint are denied by Op.1 and Op.2. The pleadings of reply on merits are similar to preliminary objections. There is no need to retreat the same to avoid the repetition and lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has tendered into evidence Ex. C-A affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-B affidavit of Sandeep Sharma driver of the car alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op number 1 and Op number 2 tendered into evidence Ex. Op-A affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kumar Goyal, Ex.Op-B affidavit of Sh. Mahesh Chander Sharma alongwith documents Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-5 and closed the evidence.
4. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
5. It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained insurance policy number 3373/004666400/000/01 of vehicle (tavera) bearing number PB-30R-3769 for the period of 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018. It is writ large on the file Ex.C-2 and C-3 which are is motor policy schedule cum certificate of insurance was valid for the period of 29.7.2016 to 28.7.2017 and 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018 respectively. The above said policy was issued by Ops in favour of complainant after received the premium of Rs. 25491/- . In the light of Ex.C-3 it is clear cut mentioned that the date of registration of the vehicle in question was 15.6.2009. Place of registration of the vehicle was Patiala. The vehicle engine number was 31J96315 and chassis number was MA6AB60559HO95856. Total seating capacity including driver was 10. The IDV (Insured Declared Value) was mentioned as Rs. 2,88,000/-. It is not disputed of the policy of the vehicle was valid one at the time of fire incidence occurred on 11.6.2018. This Commission has observed that at the time of incidence the insurance policy was fully valid. Pollution certificate which is Ex.C-4 which was valid from 16.3.2018 to 15.9.2018 at the time of fire incidence of the car. Ex. C-6 is the DDR was lodged on 12.6.2018, Ex.C-7 is toll receipt from Zirakpur to Patiala dated 11.6.2018 which was valid till 12.6.2018. Complainant also duly produced on record Ex.C-8 picture of the burnt car. Ex.C-9 is news item published in newspaper with regard to burnt Tavera Car. Ex. C-10 is a repudiation letter dated 10.7.2018. Ex.C-11 is fire report issued by the official of the Fire brigade Patiala dated 18.6.2018 alongwith fee receipt of Rs. 200/- per contra. Ex.Op.A is an Affidavit of Vikas Kumar Goyal, Deputy Manager (legal Claims), Ex.Op-B is another affidavit of Sh. Mahesh Chander Sharma Surveyor, Ex.Op-2 is motor insurance claim form. Ex.Op-3 is a motor final survey report. Ex.Op-4 is an investigation report of vehicle in question. Investigator mentioned in his report finding no.13 that fitness of vehicle was valid upto 01.03.2017. This Commission has considered view that at the time of issuance of Policy by Ops why not checked fitness certificate, why Ops obtained premium of insurance policy of Rs. 25,491/- from complainant from this angle ops committed unfair trade practice qua the complainant. Ex.Op-5 is repudiation letter issued by the Ops. In the repudiation letter, It is mentioned that "on perusal of the same we find that you have put the insured vehicle on road knowing full well that the fitness certificate had expired at the material time of accident.  Therefore the vehicle being a commercial vehicle has been put to use in violation of section 84 of the motor vehicle Act and in violation of the permit conditions. In view of the violation of the permit conditions referred above, we regret our inability to consider your claim."
6. To trace out the varsity of truth this Commission has examined Ex.C-3 which is motor policy schedule cum certificate of insurance issued by Ops qua the complainant. The period of insurance was valid from 29.7.2017 to 28.7.2018. Complainant also deposited a premium of Rs. 25491/- to the Ops. On this insurance certificate/policy schedule there is not specifically mentioned with regard to valid certificate of fitness of the vehicle in question is required at the time of issuance of the policy. We feel that from this angle the Ops committed a clear cut deficiency in service qua the complainant. This commission has no hesitation to hold that the ops also liable for unfair trade practice. The innocent consumer has no fault when they avail the services from the Ops. The aggrieved consumer also paid a huge amount by way of premium of the policy to the Ops. It is the duty of the Ops to disclose all the relevant prevision of the law at the time of issuance of the policy but they did not do so, Ops introduce the excuse by one pretext to other at the time of issuance of repudiation letter qua the complainant. We feel that this case is a fit case to redress the grievances of the consumer. However, Ops neither pleaded in his reply nor produced any cogent evidence to prove this factum that at the time of car fire occurrence i.e. 11.6.2018 the car was used for commercial purpose.
7. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we Partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Op number 1 and Op number 2 to pay the net liability of the insurer of Rs. 2,54,343/- as per Motor Survey final report to the complainant. Further the Ops are directed to pay consolidate sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. This order be complied by Ops within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
9. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
10. The file be return to the District Consumer Commission, Patiala. The Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules by the District Consumer Commission, Patiala.  

                                Announced.

                                23^rd November, 2023.

 

     ( Kanwaljeet Singh)        (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

             Member                       President