Haryana

StateCommission

A/394/2018

M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK THAKAN AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

18 Mar 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.394 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 02.04.2018

Date of Decision:18.03.2021

 

1.      M/s Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered office at 27 BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra, through its concerned Manager.

2.      M/s Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regional office at H-78, 7^th Floor, Himalya House, 23 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its concerned Manager.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Deepak thakran S/o Late RameshThakran, R/o H.No. 497/22, Parbhu Nagar, Mandi, Sonepat, Haryana.

2.      Mannu Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Road Near Rao Tula Ram Stadium, Rewari 123401, Haryana, through its Manager.

                   …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:              Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

                             Mr.P.S.Bedi, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                             Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

RAM  SINGH CHAUDHARY,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of car bearing No. HR-10AB-5176, which was purchased on 04.01.2017 by him from respondent No.2- Mannu Motors. The car has been insured for Rs.9,92,793/- for which the complainant paid a premium of Rs.37,624/-.   The insurance was valid from 04.01.2017 to 03.01.2018.  Unfortunately, on 16.03.2017, the car met with an accident and was got totally damaged.  He informed the insurance company about the accident.  The vehicle was shifted to Mannu Motors-(respondent No.2 in appeal) for repair of the vehicle in question, but, the vehicle was totally damaged. Surveyor was appointed, who conducted the survey and told to the complainant that it was a total loss case.  Thereafter, O.Ps. sent a letter dated 09.08.2017, vide which the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that vehicle was disclosed to be new, whereas according to RC, it was of 2015 model and from the dealer particulars, it does not match with the vehicle sale invoice. He requested the respondents several times to make the payment, but of no use. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate  reply controverting his averments and O.P.Nos.1 and 2 alleged that  while entering into the contract of insurance, the complainant has disclosed that insured vehicle was new one, but, as per RC, the manufacturing year of the vehicle was 2015.  On the basis of wrong information, the complainant has obtained IDV of Rs.9,92,793/-. The documents provided by the complainant  as well as dealer did not match with the vehicle sales invoices. The complainant has misrepresented the facts with regard to the sale price of the vehicle and obtained inappropriate IDV, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 09.08.2017. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have sent letters dated 22.04.2017 and 04.05.2017 to the insured and requested to provide documents, but, he has failed to produce the proof of payment of the vehicle as per invoice.  During the investigation, it was observed that complainant has purchased a demo car, but, purchase the insurance policy by showing it new and no pre-insurance inspection was done as the car was shown as new car. In the insurance policy, the model of the car was shown as 2016 whereas as per the  service record, the first service was done on 17.11.2015 at 8503 Kms and second service on 27.05.2016 at 14590 Kms and the dealer also confirmed that said car was 2015 model.  On the basis of declaration, the complainant have obtained the IDV for vehicle as Rs.9,92,793/-. The complainant has concealed the material facts.  He has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondents. The complainant has not entitled for any relief and compensation. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2. The OP Nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.      O.P.No.3 filed separate written statement and O.P.No.3 alleged that  the complainant has purchased a car from it. The complainant has not disclosed the engine number and chasis number. The car brought to it for repair after the accident, however the car was declared to be beyond repairable condition.  The car was 2015 model. The car being of previous model, the complainant was compensated by giving discount as the rate of the car had increased by more than Rs.1.5 lakh at that time. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of respondent No.2-Mannu Motors. There was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.02.2018 and O.Ps. directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we held the respondents No.1 and 2 to be deficient in their services and also hereby direct them to make the payment of the claim amount of Rs.9,92,793/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of Rs.9,92,793/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of accident  after excluding 60 days till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) for rendering deficient services,  harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, Opposite party No.1 and 2-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.P.S.Bedi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr.Ketan Antil, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      The basic and foremost question which requires for adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the  appellants were justified to repudiate the claim of the respondent No.1 as complainant once after  entire satisfaction and scrutinizing the relevant documents, the insurance policy Ex.C-3 was issued favouring the respondent No.1-complainant?

8.      Similarly, the another important question which requires  for further consideration by this Commission is as to whether the manufacturing year of vehicle is 2015, which is infact a Demo car, which was purchased by the respondent No.1-complainant in the year 2017, in such  circumstances, when the vehicle was first time registered in the year of 2017, would it be considered as a new vehicle or would be considered as a old vehicle?

9.      Taking into consideration the most important questions which require adjudication by this Commission is that it is ordinary prudence and in order to execute the privity of contract between the  insurer and the insured, which is incumbent upon the insurer to verify all the relevant documents including the invoice values, the IDV value and then only the insurance policy has to be issued.

10.    Admittedly, as per the facts and circumstances of the case including the complaint and the sufficient quantum of evidence led before the learned District Commission, the year of manufacturing of the vehicle in question  is 2015.  It was purchased by the complainant-respondent No.1 in the year 2017 and it was only after presentation of the relevant documents before the insurer or its representatives, the insurance policy Ex. C-3 was issued, in which the IDV value of the vehicle in question was mentioned as Rs.9,92,793/-. Questioning the mode of payment of the vehicle by the learned counsel for the appellants is absolutely not allowable at this stage, when the authorized officials or the agents of the insurer, after their due satisfactions issued the insurance policy and as such, the IDV value of the vehicle in question has to be taken into consideration as mentioned therein.

11.    The other contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellants that there are certain material facts concealed by the complainant at the time of submitting the documents before the issuance of policy is also of no consequence and does not support the appellants in any manner.  In fact, a perusal of the entire record including appreciation of voluminous documentary evidence, it is quite evident that no such material fact has been concealed by the complainant.   Moreover, it is the satisfaction of the authorized officials or agents of the insurer to verify all the documents including the invoice value etc.  and then only, the insurance policy could be issued.

12.    Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3-Mannu Motors argued that since the vehicle is in total loss, he is entitled for parking charges.   However, O.P.No.3 admitted in para No.2 of the written statement of defence that the complainant brought the vehicle for repair but car was declared to be beyond repairable condition.

13.    It is equally important to make a reference here that  since vehicle met with an accident and this fact is also finds mention in the report submitted by the surveyor Ex.R-6 in which, it has been particularly mentioned that the  year of manufacturing of the vehicle is 2015 and since it was a demo car, it was only sold in the year 2017 to the complainant and it is only after selling out the vehicle in question, it could be insured and could be registered with the registering authority.  A perusal of the registration certificate also makes abundantly clear that year of manufacturing of the vehicle in question was 2015 and it was registered in the year of 2017. Hence, the vehicle is considered as a new vehicle as the complainant is the first owner of the vehicle.  Hence, the issues which required consideration by this Commission before recording of findings about the affirmation or rejection of the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission are having been dealt favouring the respondent No.1-complainant and since it was a case of the total loss, there is absolutely no justification to repudiate the claim of the respondent-complainant on whimsically  and technical grounds.

14.    As a sequence thereof and with the above observation and discussion, no  fault could be found with the observation or the findings recorded by the learned District Commission and while  concurring  with the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent No.1-complainant, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants have been properly considered but have not been found to be untenable without any force and merit and render no assistance. Hence, the learned District Forum has not committed any illegality and perversity in the impugned order and as such, the impugned order is legally sustainable. The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.  However, the opposite party No.3-Mannu Motors is not entitled to receive the parking charges from the complainant as the vehicle was in total loss.

15.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

March 18th, 2021        Manjula               Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.