Haryana

Karnal

CC/257/2017

Vikash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Surjit Narwal

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.257 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 03.08.2017

                                                         Date of decision:03.12.2018

                                                                                       

Vikas Kumar son of Shri Satbir resident of village Mangalora, Tehsil & District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company SCO no.124-125, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager, Branch office at opposite Mini Sectt. Sector-12, Karnal.

        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Surjit Narwal Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

       

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his truck bearing registration no.HR-45-B-3932, Model 2016 which has been insured with the OP, vide policy no.2315201347545000000, valid from 1.3.2016 to 28.02.2017. On 13.01.2017 the driver of the vehicle namely Rakesh came from Gumthala Rao, District Yamuna Nagar to Nilokheri District Karnal. When the driver came near Dera Ram Nagar Indri District Karnal with a moderate speed suddenly one neel cow came infront of the dumper, his driver try to save the cow due to this reason the dumper turn turtle into the ditches and struck with the tree. Due to this the truck badly damaged. The said incident caused without any fault of the driver. Regarding this accident the complainant lodged the DDR no.14 on 15.1.2017 at Police Station Indri, District Karnal. After the said accident complainant give the information to the OP. After receiving the information the surveyor of the company visit the spot and inspect the vehicle personally and on asking of the surveyor the complainant making arrangement of the towing van took the said damaged vehicle in the Agency for its repair in Metro Motor Pvt. Ltd. Karnal where surveyor again inspected the said vehicle in the presence of Engineers of the workshop and after inspection declared the truck as loss. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents in the office of the OP. It is alleged that on the instruction and direction of the official of the OP the complainant get repaired his vehicle and paid the amount of Rs.4,76,191/- to Metro Motors Karnal. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- hydro crane.  Thereafter, complainant approached the office of OP several times and requested to pay the aforesaid amount of repair but OP did not pay any claim and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the grounds necessity of permit, but at the time of accident the permit file applied by the complainant in the office of the RTA office and permit issued by the RTA authority on 16.1.2017. The process of permit is continue with the authority and complainant received the permit on 16.1.2017. Hence there is no negligence on the part of complainant regarding permit and second reason given by the OP intimation given by the complainant regarding the incident after three days but complainant telephonically informed the OP on the same date. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties cause of action and complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP, vide policy no.231520134754, valid from 1.3.2016 to 28.2.2017. The vehicle was met with an accident on 13.01.2017. The intimation about the accident was reported to the OP on 16.01.2017, i.e. after the delay of 3 days. Thereafter, OP appointed the IRDAI approved surveyor and loss assessor, in order to assess the loss and damages in regard to the insured vehicle. It is further pleaded that on the date of accident i.e. 13.01.2017 the insured vehicle was been plied on the road without any permit which constitute fundamental violation of policy condition as well as Motor Vehicle Act 1988, hence the claim under the policy was rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of one Rakesh Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 6.7.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O11 and closed the evidence on 23.10.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of truck/dumper bearing registration no.HR45B-3932 and fully insured with the OP. On 13.01.2017 his truck/dumper met with an accident and due to accident the truck/dumper badly damaged. DDR no.14 on 15.01.2017 at Police Station Indri, District Karnal. Information regarding accident was given to OP and surveyor of the OP inspected the vehicle. On asking of the surveyor said damaged vehicle has taken to the Metro Motor Pvt. Ltd. Karnal for its repair.

7.             That he submitted all the relevant documents in the office of OP. On the asking of OP and complainant get his vehicle repaired and paid the amount of Rs.4,76,191/- to Metro Motor Karnal. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- hydro crane. On 9.3.2017 the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP on the baseless grounds. The complainant applied for route permit in the office of RTA prior to the accident and same was sanction by the authority on 16.01.2017, valid till 16.03.2021. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the authorities in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the vehicle in question was insured at the time of accident. The complainant failed to intimate about the alleged accident immediately as required by terms and conditions of the policy. Resultantly, OP was deprived of his right to get the spot survey done. The alleged accident occurred on 13.01.2017 and route permit produced by the complainant is valid from 16.1.2017 to 16.03.2021. Thus, at that time the insured vehicle has been plied on the road without any route permit which constitute fundamental violation of the policy conditions as well as Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The counsel for the OP relied upon the judgment 2017 (2) CPR 878 (NC) decided on 3.3.2017 titled as Bir Singh Versus Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

9.             Undisputedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. The accident claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP on the ground, that at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle in question was plied on the road without route permit. There is a circular of IRDA dated 20.9.2011 that the claim should not be repudiated on the technical ground in mechanical fashion. In the present case, there is a difference of only 3 days in issuance of the route permit before the happening of accident, that in view of the formalities to be performed to get the permit it must have been applied before the accident, therefore, the claim cannot be repudiated in toto on the technical ground. In both authorities cited by the learned counsel of complainant in  Thirth Singh Brar’s case and Anshul Bansal’s case(supra) it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis. The authority cited by the OP is not applicable to the case in hand.

11.           The proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission Haryana is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case complainant violated the terms of the policy regarding route permit. Consequently, the complainant is held entitled to get 75% of the of the repair amount i.e. Rs.4,76,197/-.

12.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the  complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay 75% of the repair amount i.e. Rs.3,57,147/-  to the complainant. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of 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:03.12.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member