Haryana

Karnal

777/2011

Shyam Lal Atwal S/p Kapoor Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC EGRO Gernal Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Chaudhary

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.777 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 4.11.2011.

                                                          Date of decision: 29.02.2016

 

Shyam Lal Atwal @ Sham Lal son of Shri Kapoor Chand r/o 1830, Darji Mohalla, Pai district Kaithal.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.The HDFC  ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Claims Manager-North, C-302, 3^rd Floor, Ansal Plaza, Hudco Place, Andrewsganj, New Delhi 110049.

 

2. The HDFC ERGO General Insurance company Ltd. through its Operation Manager, SCO 237, Second Floor, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                         ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.Mukesh Chaudhary Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER:            

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments  that he got  insured his Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-64-4494  from the Opposite Parties  on  11.12.2010, vide insurance policy No.2315200044198500001, which was valid from 11.12.2010 to 10.12.2011.  On 1.2.2012, the said vehicle met with an accident at  Agra Jaipur road in the area of District  Mahua  and First Information Report no.66 of 2011 was registered  regarding the said accident in the concerned police station. In the said accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. Intimation was given to the Opposite Parties. The vehicle was got repaired from Munish Motors, Bharatpur(Rajasthan) and bill of Rs.2,23,242/- was issued regarding the repairs. Thereafter, he lodged the  owner’s damage claim with the Opposite Parties  and submitted all the requisite documents. However, the Opposite Parties  illegally repudiated his claim, vide letter No. C-23001007711, on flimsy ground that the vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate on the date of accident. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 18.10.2011 upon the Opposite  parties but,  the same also did not yield any result. In  this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties,   which caused him mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties,   who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided by this Forum in a summary manner and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

                   On merits, the  factum of accident has not been disputed. It has been denied that the complainant spent Rs.2, 23,242/-  on the repairs of the vehicle. It has been submitted that the complainant was not having valid fitness certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident, which was contravention of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Parties   and duly conveyed to him. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 have been tendered.

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties   affidavit of S.C.Vats Ex.O1 and document Ex.O2 has been tendered.

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.                 Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-64-4494   was insured with the Opposite Parties   and the same met with an accident on 1.2.2011 and in the said accident, the vehicle was damaged.  The factum of accident also stands established from the copy of the First Information Report  Ex.C3 coupled with the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Parties   only on the ground that there was no valid fitness certificate of the  vehicle in question on the date of accident.

7.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties   laid stress on the contention that  fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid from 8.1.2010 to 28.12.2010, whereas the accident had taken place on 1.2.2011. Thus, the complainant violated the condition of the insurance policy regarding the fitness certificate of the vehicle, therefore, his claim was rightly  repudiated.

8.                          Thus, the main question which arises for consideration is whether the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no valid fitness certificate of the vehicle on the date of accident. Such question was considered by the Hon’ble National Commission in   G.Kothainachiar Vs.United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others IV(2007) CPJ 347 (NC)=2008(1)CPC 186  wherein the vehicle  was damaged in an accident, but the claim   for reimbursement of the loss/damage was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle was not having certificate of fitness on the date of accident.  The contention  of the insurance company   in that regard was not accepted. It was held that there was no breach of the policy condition, therefore, the claim could not be repudiated.  In   New India  Assurance company Ltd.  and another Versus Yogesh Gupta  2010(3) CLT 540     also the claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle was not having fitness certificate at the time of accident. It was held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh that  insurance company had no right to repudiate the claim on the ground that by driving vehicle without fitness certificate the complainant had violated  the statutory provisions.

9.                 The proposition of law laid down in the afore cited authorities squarely covers the facts of the present case. The Opposite Parties have not produced the copy of any insurance policy.  Even in the written statement it  has no where  been mentioned as to which term or condition of the  insurance policy  was violated by the complainant by plying the vehicle without fitness certificate at the time of accident. There is no material on the basis of which it can be considered that the vehicle was not in good condition and not  fit to be plied on the date of  accident. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to get the claim from the  Opposite Parties and repudiation of his claim on the ground of not having fitness certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident amounted to deficiency in services.

10.               It is the case of the complainant that he spent Rs.2,23,242/- on the repairs of the vehicle and  the bill Ex.C10 has been produced in this regard. The Opposite Parties have not produced any report of surveyor’s  regarding assessment of the loss/damage. Therefore, in the absence of surveyor report, the bill Ex.C10 is to be accepted as correct. However, the insurance company would be entitled to make necessary deductions as per terms and conditions of the  insurance policy in respect of the bill of repairs.

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of the amount spent by the complainant on the repairs of the vehicle as shown in bill Ex.C10, alongwith interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 4.11.2011 till its actual realization, after making necessary deductions as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy in respect of the bill of repairs. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental pain and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses.  The Opposite Parties shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:29.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Mukesh Chaudhary Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:29.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.