DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 106 of 03-03-2010<br /> Decided on : 08-07-2010 <br /> <br /> Mohan Lal Jindal aged 65 years S/o Ramji Dass H. No. 17281, Street No. 6, Pukhraj Colony, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Guru Kashi Marg, Sharma Complex, First Floor, 3039-A, Bathinda, through its Manager<br /> 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Interface Building No. 11, 401/402, 4th Floor, New Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai through its M.D./Chairman.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Bansi Lal, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant is the owner of Maruti Wagon R LX1 bearing Registration No. PB-15B-6401 Model 2003 which is comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide cover note No. 3001/50183113/03/000 dated 23-07-2009 valid upto 22-07-2010. The said vehicle is fitted with LPG kit since 17-04-2006. In this regard an entry is made on the registration certificate and the said car was insured with the opposite parties since then. The above said vehicle met with an accident on 10-2-2010 at about 6.30 p.m. with Alto Car bearing No. PB-23H-7744. At that time, vehicle was being driven by Rajiv Kumar. In this regard DDR No. 26 dated 10-02-2010 was registered at Police Post Bus Stand, Rajpura. Intimation of the accident was given to the opposite parties by the complainant through telephone who registered the claim on 16-02-2010. The vehicle was shifted with M/s. S.A. Autos, Near Tinkoni, G.T. Road, Bathinda Workshop on the recommendations of the opposite parties. The opposite parties deputed Mr. Ashok Rathi as surveyor who inspected the vehicle. The complete survey was done by the surveyor who took his signatures on some blank papers. As some parts of the damaged vehicle were expensive at M/s. S A Auto, the surveyor of the opposite parties asked him to arrange some spare parts from the outside of the workshop as the loss of the opposite parties become minimize. So the complainant purchased some damaged spare parts from M/s. Happy Motor Workshop and the bill of Rs. 47,415/- was given to the surveyor. The complainant alleged that the vehicle in question was repaired under the supervision and instruction of the surveyor Mr. Alok Rathi and he spent Rs. 47,415/- for the repair of the vehicle and all the original bills, photocopies of Insurance cover note, registration certificate and driving licence of Rajiv Kumar were submitted to the surveyor. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 23-02-2010 on the grounds of Gas kit not endorsed in policy. Hence, complainant has filed the present complaint.<br /> 2. The opposite parties in their written version admitted that they have received intimation regarding the alleged accident and claim No. MOTO 1449860 was registered in this respect. The opposite parties denied that they have deputed Alok Nath as surveyor and he had got signatures of the complainant on some blank documents. They have also denied that they have given any such assurance that total loss will be paid. They have pleaded that complainant has not placed on file any bills of repairs rather estimates have been placed on file. The opposite parties pleaded that they have deputed Mr. Satinder Pal Singh surveyor and loss assessor to conduct survey and assess the loss who conducted surveyor of the vehicle on 17-02-2010 at Bathinda and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6262/- vide survey report dated 23-02-2010. The accident has been stated to be of 10-02-2010. The make of the vehicle is of the year 2003 and the depreciation has been charged as per terms and conditions of the policy and Indian Motor Tariff. The opposite parties have denied the assertion of the complainant that he had handed over the bill of Rs. 47,415/- to the surveyor. They have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23-02-2010 on the ground that gas kit was not endorsed in the policy.<br /> 3. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. <br /> 4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The complainant has alleged that his vehicle met with an accident on 10-02-2010 and the opposite parties deputed surveyor namely Alok Rathi who inspected the vehicle lying in the workshop i.e. M/s. S A Auto. He did complete survey. As some damaged parts were expensive at M/s. S A Auto, the surveyor of the opposite parties asked the complainant to arrange those spare parts from outside workshop to minimize the loss. On the recommendations of the surveyor, the complainant purchased damaged parts from Happy Motor Workshop worth Rs. 47,415/- and he handed over all the bills to the surveyor. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on account that gas kit was not endorsed in the policy. The opposite parties have flatly refused that they have appointed Alok Rathi as a surveyor rather they have deputed Mr. Satinder Pal Singh as surveyor who conducted survey on 17-02-2010 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6262/- vide survey report dated 23-02-2010.<br /> The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23-02-2010 on the ground that gas kit was not endorsed in the policy. A perusal of registration certificate of vehicle in question Ex. C-9 reveals that it is specifically written on it that “LPG Gas kit installed in vehicle PB-15B-6401 vide Tank No. 201557. This piece of evidence shows that gas kit was already endorsed on the registration certificate. While issuing Insurance cover note, Insurance Companies should properly scrutinize the registration certificate. In the present case, it seems that opposite parties have not scrutinized registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant. If they have scrutinized this document, this must have come to their knowledge that his vehicle is equipped with LPG kit and they would not have issued him policy if this clause was not covered under their policy but ignoring this fact, they have issued the policy to the complainant. Survey Report Ex. R-3 shows that surveyor has made final assessed amount to the tune of Rs. 6262/- only and remarks given at the bottom that at the time of accident LPG kit was fitted in the car but not endorsed in the policy, Insurer may consider this before settling the claim. As the opposite parties have themselves ignored the fact regarding LPG kit in the vehicle while issuing the Insurance cover note, they cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on such flimsy ground. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in 2009(II) CPJ 18 (NC) case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Avtar Singh wherein it has been held that :-<br /> “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 219B) – Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 52 – Insurance - motor accident claim – Repudiated – Contention, car fitted with CNG Gas Kit could not be insured without permission of competent authority – Terms and conditions of policy not produced in support – In absence of plea regarding change of vehicle from petrol/diesel engine to CNG Gas Kit, contention regarding applicability of Section 52, Motor Vehicles Act, not acceptable – Circular issued by Government subsequent to issuance of policy, not applicable to policy in question. - Complaint allowed by Forum – Order upheld in appeal – No interference required in revision.” <br /> 5. Nothing is placed on the file to prove the assertion of the complainant that Mr. Alok Rathi was ever appointed surveyor by the opposite parties or any repair has been done under his guidance or supervision. The complainant has placed on file only estimates. No actual bill is produced by the complainant. There is no nexus between the LPG kit and the accident. Moreover in Ex. C-9 i.e. Registration Certificate of the complainant, it is specifically mentioned that the LPG kit is installed in the vehicle. Hence, the opposite parties cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on this ground. The surveyor Mr. Satinder Pal has surveyed the loss of vehicle to the tune of Rs. 6262/- in which he has not included labour charges of Rs. 2,000/-, whereas the complainant is entitled to get labour charges also vide Ex. R-4.<br /> 6. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 6262/- plus Rs. 2,000/- as labour charges. Therefore, in total the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 8262/-alongwith the aforesaid amount of compensation and cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced<br /> 08-07-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul ) (Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />