DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : CC/71/2016
Date of Institution : 09.02.2016
Date of Decision : 05.01.2021
M/s Friends Cold Storage through its partner Shri Ramanjit Singh Bedi, Kajla Road, Banga. …Complainant
Versus
1. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower-3, 6th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai through its Director/M.D./Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 5 and 6, 3rd Floor, PUDA Complex, Court Road, Opposite Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: Sh. AK Verma counsel for complainant.
Sh. RK Sharma counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President
2. Ms. Jyotsna : Member
(ORDER BY SHRI KULJIT SINGH PRESIDENT):
The complainant M/s Friends Cold Storage through its Partner has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) against Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai and another. (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is a partnership firm and owner of one Verna Car bearing Chassis No. MALCU41ULDM103002 Engine No. D4FCU218004 Model 1/2013 and got it insured from the opposite party No. 2 vide policy bearing No. V2817476 valid from 23.1.2014 to 22.1.2015 and paid Rs. 32,084/- for its premium.
3. It is further alleged that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 12.12.2014 and intimation regarding said accident was given to the opposite parties on 18.12.2014 and said car was lying with Kosmo Automobiles, Jalandhar and loss assessed as total loss and the said Kosmo Automobiles was charging Godown/Parking charges. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 vide their letter dated 27.2.2015 wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not registered with Transport Authorities at the time of accident on 12.12.2014 and temporary registration certificate has also expired. But at the time of issuance of insurance policy mentioned above it was made specifically cleared to the opposite party No. 2 that the vehicle is not registered with Transport Authorities and the temporary registration certificate has also expired and they received the premium on 10.1.2014 and issued the policy after knowing all these facts. Further, in the meantime the car stands registered with the transport department vide registration certificate dated 7.2.2015 but the opposite parties wrongly repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 27.2.2015. After that the complainant served a legal notice dated 29.5.2015 upon the opposite parties to lift the salvage from Kosmo Automobiles at the earliest and to make the payment of the claim amount to the complainant but to no effect. The complainant after the expiry of period of notice sold the salvage for Rs. 2.5 lacs as the same was deteriorating day by day and Kosmo Automobiles was charged parking charges. The vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties for the sum of Rs. 8,60,000/- and car is total loss and opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,57,000/- i.e. the insured value of the vehicle in question alongwith interest fro the delayed payment at the rate of 15% per annum. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,57,000/- i.e. the insured value of the car less Rs. 2,50,000/- i.e. value of salvage alongwith 15% interest per annum from the date of accident till actual realization.
2) To pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, tension and harassment suffered by the complainant.
3) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost of the complaint.
4) Any other relief deems fit and proper may also be given.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written reply taking preliminary objections on the grounds that at the time of accident on 12.12.2014 the insured vehicle was being used without registration number violating the Motor Vehicle Act and Policy terms and conditions. Admittedly even the Temporary Registration Number PB-08-BK (Temp.)-2543 allotted to the vehicle also expired. The vehicle was got registered by the complainant after the accident and permanent registration number was allotted to the car by the Registering Authority, Nawanshehar is PB-32-T-0315 with date of registration as 7.2.2015 and fee for registration of the vehicle was deposited by the complainant on 7.2.2015. Further, as per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of the motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Further, as the vehicle was not registered with the Registering Authority the complainant could not supply the Registration Certificate demanded by and on behalf of the opposite party vide letters dated 22.12.2014 by Sunil Chawla Surveyor and Loss Assessor, letter dated 23.12.2014 by the opposite party and reminder dated 15.1.2015 and consequently as the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 23.2.2015 that as the vehicle used without registration certificate at the time of accident, Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and even temporary registration number expired the claim stands rejected. The claim of the complainant rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of policy, so there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the intimation of the loss to car in accident on 12.12.2014 was given to the opposite party on 18.12.2014 and on receipt of information Mr. Sunil Chawla, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the insurance company to assess the loss but complainant failed to submit all the documents required for settlement of the claim including registration certificate as the vehicle was not got registered by the complainant. However, Sunil Chawla Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,32,315/- and submitted his final survey report dated 20.2.2015 with the opposite party. The claim of the complainant has been efficiently handled and dealt with terms and conditions of the policy and repudiated as the car insured with the opposite party was not registered either with temporary number or permanent registration number. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties. Lastly they prayed that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part so the complaint may be dismissed with special costs.
6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Ramanjit Singh Bedi alias Raman Bedi Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 copy of letter dated 27.2.2015, Ex.C-2 copy of RC, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-4 copy of bills/estimate given by Kosmo Automobiles and Ex.C-5 Pictorial diagram of the accidental vehicle and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarun Kumar Ex.OA, Ex.O-1 receipt of deposit of registration charges, Ex.OP-2 copy of registration certificate, Ex.O-3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.O-4 copy of letter dated 22.12.2014, Ex.O-5 copy of letter dated 23.12.2014, Ex.O-6 copy of letter dated 15.1.2015, Ex.O-7 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.O-8 copy of survey report of Sunil Chawla dated 20.2.2015 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. It is not denied by the opposite parties that the complainant Friends Cold Storage, Banga purchased the insurance policy Ex.O-3 from the opposite parties for the period from 23.1.2014 to 22.1.2015 for the sum assured of Rs. 8,60,000/-. It is also not denied by the opposite parties that they received the premium of Rs. 31,972/- from the complainant for the insurance of vehicle in question for the period from 23.1.2014 to 22.1.2015 vide insurance policy Ex.O-3. The opposite parties also not denied that the accident of insured vehicle took place on 12.12.2014 within the validity period of the insurance policy Ex.O-3. It is admitted by the opposite parties that they repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.2.2015 Ex.C-1/Ex.O-7 on the ground that as the vehicle was not registered with Transport Authority at the time of accident on 12.12.2014 and temporary registration certificate also expired. The complainant also admitted in his affidavit Ex.CA that at the time of issuance of policy and at the time of accident the vehicle was not registered with the Transport Authorities and temporary registration certificate also expired which was already told to the opposite parties at the time of issuance of insurance policy. The complainant also deposed in his affidavit Ex.CA that the opposite parties were well aware of the fact at the time of issuance of policy that the vehicle in question was not registered with the Transport Authorities and temporary registration certificate also expired. Further, the complainant also admitted in his affidavit Ex.CA that he sold the salvage of the car in question for Rs. 2,50,000/-.
10. The main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint that the opposite parties not paid the claim amount of Rs. 9,57,000/- for the total loss of the vehicle less Rs. 2,50,000/- which is value of the salvage alongwith interest and compensation.
11. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have taken a plea that the vehicle of the complainant was not registered with the Transport Authorities and temporary registration certificate of the said vehicle also expired so they repudiated the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy as without registration certificate no person can drive the vehicle on any public place. However, they further have taken a plea that the opposite parties demanded some documents from the complainant including registration certificate vide letters Ex.O-4 to Ex.O-6 but the complainant failed to submit the registration certificate of the vehicle.
12. Now the main question before us whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim if his vehicle is not registered with the Transport Authorities and temporary registration number of his vehicle also expired ?
13. It is admitted fact between the parties that at the time of issuance of insurance policy the complainant was not having registration certificate of the vehicle and temporary registration certificate of the vehicle was also expired but even then the opposite parties received the premium amount from the complainant and also issued insurance policy Ex.O-3 in favour of the complainant. In our view the opposite parties must have taken this objection at the time of receipt of premium and issuance of policy and when they received the premium from the complainant and issued the insurance policy then the opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance claim of the complainant.
14. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in their latest order in Revision Petition No. 1984 of 2015 titled United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Sushil Kumar Godara decided on 11.12.2020 held as under.-
“Since the petitioner/insurance company had received the insurance premium and there was no violation of any specific condition in the insurance policy, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by the insured.
Though plying a vehicle on road without registration is a violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the Competent Authority to take action against a non-registered vehicle is the police and other Government Authorities. Insurance Company after accepting the premium, cannot escape from its liablity and repudiate the claim on this technical ground.”
This citation of the Hon'ble National Commission is fully applicable to the present case as in the present case also the opposite parties received the premium from the complainant and repudiated his claim on technical ground for non registration of the vehicle which in view of this citation is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
15. Now next question is that the complainant is entitled for how much insurance claim amount. The Surveyor of the opposite parties vide his final report dated 20.2.2015 Ex.O-8 assessed the net loss for Rs. 6,22,315/- after deducting the depreciation and other charges as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties, which in our view also is the full and final amount of insurance claim after deducting the salvage value of Rs. 2,50,000/- of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 3,72,315/-.
16. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sportking Synthetics Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in IV (2019) CPJ-307 (NC) held as under.-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2 (1)(g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (a) (i)- Insurance- Fire accident- Surveyor appointed- Loss assessed-Full and Final settlement-Discharge voucher signed- Further claim repudiated- Deficiency in service alleged- Surveyors are appointed under provisions of Insurance Act 1938 and their report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason- Surveyor has given a clear reason for adopting volumetric analysis for assessment of loss in respect of yarn- Stock was already burnt and only ashes were left- There is no set procedure in Insurance Act, 1938 and Surveyor has used prevailing method of assessment as per accepted norms- For valuation of stocks, clearly market value cannot be taken as loss that has been suffered by complainant as this loss is of his cost price- Surveyor has rightly used invoices and no deficiency is seen in this regard- This Commission would not sit over judgment of Surveyor because Surveyor is a technically qualified and licensed surveyor who has independently assessed loss- Interest can be awarded from date of filing of complaint if amount was not paid before filing of complaint.”
This citation of Hon'ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present matter as in the present matter also the opposite parties appointed a Surveyor who assessed the net loss of Rs. 6,22,315/-. So, in view of this judgment this amount of Rs. 6,22,315/- is full and final amount of the insurance claim as Surveyor report is most important document as he is a technically qualified person appointed by the opposite parties under the provisions of Insurance Act 1938 and his report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason. As the complainant already sold the vehicle and salvage value of vehicle is Rs. 2,50,000/- which is deducted from the insurance claim amount and final amount to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant comes to Rs. 3,72,315/-. By not paying this amount to the complainant there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
17. As a result of our above discussion, there is merit in the present complaint and same is partly allowed. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,72,315/- to the complainant on account of insurance claim. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 3,72,315/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
5th Day of January 2021
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Jyotsna)
Member
