Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/341/2015

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harnek Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Abhi, Adv.

12 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                      

First Appeal No.	:	341 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.02.2016

 

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Regd. Office: SCO 72, 1st Floor, Swastik Vihar, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula 134109.

2^nd Address:-Plot No.EL 94, T.T.C. Industrial Area, Mhape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, Mumbai, 400710.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1. Harnek Singh son of Nachhatar Singh, resident of House No.1226, Sector 34/C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Joshi Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and also known as Harmony Honda, through its Managing Director, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002

 ….Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Sahil Abhi, Advocate for the appellant.

                Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.1

                Service of respondent no.2 dispensed with vide order             dated 22.12.2015.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            He who seeks equity must do equity, is the fundamental principle of legal jurisprudence.

2.       The present is a case, where respondent no.1/ complainant having purchased a vehicle, for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, when it met with an accident, and declared total loss, is claiming an amount of Rs.10,71,792/- i.e. Insured Declared Value (in short the IDV) of the vehicle.  
3.       A motor car bearing No.CH04-C-2499 (Honda Accord) was owned by respondent no.2/opposite party no.2. Respondent no.2 purchased one insurance policy on 12.02.2014, from the appellant/opposite party no.1, in respect of the said car, which was valid upto 11.02.2015, An amount of Rs.32,930/- was paid by respondent no.2, to the appellant.  Thereafter, the said car was purchased by respondent no.1, admittedly, for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. The car met with an accident on 21.06.2014. DDR was got recorded, with the concerned Police Station. On 15.07.2014, damaged car was taken to service station of respondent no.2, for its repair. On survey being conducted, the car was declared a case of total loss.

            It is necessary to mention here that the insurance policy, as referred to above, was endorsed in the name of respondent no.1 on 11.03.2014. There is nothing on record to show that factum of purchase of the said car for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by respondent no.1, from respondent no.2, was disclosed to the appellant. In view of above, the IDV of the vehicle, continued to be shown at Rs.10,71,792/-.

4.       As per survey report, the appellant settled claim of respondent no.1 at Rs.6,78,000/-. On asking of the appellant, to tender an undertaking, in the shape of an affidavit, for realization of the said amount, respondent no.1 filed an undertaking, writing words “UP” i.e. under protest. The said amount was not realized. When despite issuance of legal notice, no relief was given, consumer complaint bearing no.133 of 2015, was filed by respondent no.1, before the Forum, on 13.03.2015.
5.       Upon notice, appellant and respondent no.2, put in appearance, before the Forum. It was specifically stated that when respondent no.1 failed to submit an undertaking to claim an amount of Rs.6,78,000/-, his case of claim was closed. It was further stated that the fact of purchasing the car, for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, by respondent no.1, was not disclosed, when the insurance policy was endorsed in his (respondent no.1) favour on 11.03.2014.
6.       In the rejoinder filed by respondent no.1, he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in written version of the appellant and respondent no.2. Perusal thereof also indicates that it was nowhere stated that at the time of getting endorsement, on the insurance policy, value at which the vehicle was purchased, was disclosed to the appellant.
7.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8.       After hearing Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, and granted following relief to respondent no.1, against the appellant/Opposite Party No.1:-

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

a]  To pay Rs.10,71,792/- to the complainant, being the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim till it is paid;

b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service.

c]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest, on the above awarded amount of Rs.10,71,792/- from the date of lodging of the claim and also on the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing this complaint, at the rate of 18% per annum, till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of  Rs.7,000/-. 

The complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that Opposite Party No.2 is not entitled to claim parking charges from the complainant.”. 

9.       The Forum ordered the appellant to pay to respondent no.1, an amount of Rs.10,71,792/- i.e. the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest and litigation expenses.
10.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
11.       Service of respondent no.2 was dispensed with, by this Commission, vide order dated 22.12.2015.
12.       When notice of motion was issued on 22.12.2015, it was specifically stated by Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle, in dispute, was purchased by respondent no.1, on a lesser price than the IDV shown in the insurance policy, mentioned as above. It was stated that the appellant is ready to pay an amount of Rs.8,15,000/- and litigation expenses, to satisfy the claim raised by respondent no.1. Above proposal was also given on 10.02.2016, at the time of final arguments, however, Counsel for respondent no.1 refused to accept the same.
13.       We have heard Counsel for the appellant, respondent no.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
14.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the appellant, respondent no.1, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The facts are not in dispute. It is on record that when the insurance policy for the car, in question, was purchased by respondent no.2, from the appellant on 12.02.2014, its IDV was shown as Rs.10,71,792/-. The said vehicle was, thereafter, sold to respondent no.1, by respondent no.2, at a price of Rs.7,50,000/-. The insurance policy is taken to protect owner of the vehicle, against any loss caused to the vehicle. The said policy is not an enrichment policy. Before granting relief, conduct of the person claiming it, has to be seen. After having purchased the vehicle, for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, it was not open to respondent no.1, to claim an amount of Rs.10,71,792/-, from the appellant. There is nothing on record, to show that when endorsement, in favour of respondent no.1 was got done, upon that insurance policy, the value for which the vehicle was purchased was brought to the notice of the appellant. If it had been done so,  changes could have been effected in the policy qua IDV, having paid the said amount. By claiming the amount, more than what has been paid, respondent no.1 has shown his greed, which this Commission deprecates. Very fair proposal was given by Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant is ready to pay an amount of Rs.8,15,000/- plus litigation expenses, to satisfy claim of respondent no.1. However, it was rejected out rightly. The Forum below when passing judgment, in favour of respondent no.1 has not considered above said fact. It was specifically stated that when endorsement was got done, the value for which vehicle was purchased was not brought to the notice of the appellant. This issue was conveniently ignored by the Forum, without giving any finding qua its impact, on the dispute between the parties. As such, the order of the Forum is liable to be modified.
15.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellant and respondent no.1.
16.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
17.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is modified, and the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-:
    1. To pay Rs.8,15,000/- to respondent no.1, towards total loss of the vehicle, in question, alongwith interest @9% per annum, from the date of lodging of claim till the payment is made;
    2. To pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation, on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony and physical harassment to respondent no.1.
    3. To pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses, to respondent no.1.
    4. The amounts mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) shall be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned in clause (i) shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim, instead of 9% p.a. and the amounts mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of default, till the payment is actually made to respondent no.1.
18.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

12.02.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Rg