DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001
Consumer Complaint No: 473 of 2011 Date of Institution: 30.08.2011 Date of Decision: 16.02.2016.
Pankaj Sangwan s/o Sh.Suresh Kumar Sangwan, R/o Village Dohki, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, Haryana. Presently at H.No.28, Patel Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 through its Authorized Signatory
Also at
Global Business Park, 12th Floor, M.G.Road, Power D, Gurgaon-122001 through its Authorized Signatory
Policy Issuing Office at:
Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Opp. Race Course, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034 (Maharashtra) through its Authorized Signatory.
Also at:
2nd Floor, Appu Ghar Shopping Complex, SCF-35, Improvement Trust Scheme-19, Civil Road, Rohtak, Haryana through its Authorized Signatory.
..Opposite party
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Sandeep Phogat, Adv for the complainant.
Shri Arun Yadav, Adv for the opposite party.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his vehicle i.e. Tata Canter bearing Regd. No. HR-63-3248 insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.3003/55064733/01/B00 dated 03.10.2009 which was valid w.e.f. 03.10.2009 to 02.10.2010 with IDV of Rs. 4 Lacs. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on 16.09.2010 and the complainant immediately informed the opposite party regarding the occurrence of accident and the opposite party appointed Surveyor Mr. Sunil who visited the place of accident on 18.09.2010 and thereafter damaged vehicle was taken to M/s J.P.Workshop, Sohna where the vehicle was repaired and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was incurred on account of repair charges. The complainant submitted the claim along with necessary documents but the opposite party has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 17.11.2010 on the ground :
“that at the time of loss the vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle but whereas the vehicle registered seating capacity is only three in all, this is violation of policy ‘limitation of use”.
The repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party on wrong and illegal ground tantatmouns to deficiency in service and thus, the complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- which were incurred on repair charges with interest @ 18 % p.a. He also sought compensation of Rs.1 Lac on account of harassment and mental agony besides cost of litigation. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the copy of insurance policy (Ann-A), and repudiation letter dated 17.11.2010 (Ann-B).
2 The opposite party in its written reply has alleged that the vehicle in question was registered with the Registering Authority with the seating capacity of three but at the time of alleged accident the vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity which was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite party.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on file and the arguments advanced by the parties besides written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on its part on the ground that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing Regd. No.HR-63-3248 with the opposite party vide Policy No. Policy No.3003/55064733/01/B00 dated 03.10.2009 which was valid w.e.f. 03.10.2009 to 02.10.2010 with IDV of Rs. 4 Lacs. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle in question met with an accident on 16.09.2010 and in this regard FIR No.330 dated 18.09.2010 u/s 279/337/338 IPC was registered in Police Station, Sohna, Gurgaon. The complainant submitted the claim for reimbursement of Rs. 1,20,000/-with the OP but it was rejected by the OP vide letter dated 17.11.2010 as there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5 However, as per the version of the OP, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle at the time of alleged accident was found carrying passengers more than the registered seating capacity. In support of his contention learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on G.Siddesh Vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard in R.P. No.618 of 2014 decided on 13.10.2014 (NCDRC) and DARCL Logistics Ltd Vs ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd in RP No.3960 of 2013 decided on 02.11.2015 (NCDRC).
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP and during the subsistence of the insurance policy it met with an accident and the same was got repaired by the complainant by incurring a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 17.11.2010 on the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle at the time of alleged accident was carrying passengers more than the registered seating capacity.
7 It has come in evidence that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad in MVA Petition RBT No.80 of 2012/11 titled Udai Prakash Vs Vikas and others, decided on 08.04.2013 (copy placed on record) has held that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and has observed as under :-
“Having perused the particulars of the vehicle, as given in the Insurance Company as well as the law cited on behalf of respondent No.3 (Opposite party in this case), I am of the opinion that the vehicle could not have carried passenger and respondent No.3-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the gratuitous passenger Hence, respondent No.3, is exonerated from the payment of compensation.”
Therefore, since the MACT has observed about the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such has exonerated the insurance company and no law has been placed before this Forum by the learned counsel for the complainant to differ from the view taken by the Hon’ble MACT, therefore, we are inclined to hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
16.02.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
