DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.387/2012
Shri Rajinder Singh
S/o Sh. Kishan Singh
R/o H.No. C-2173A,
Sushant Lok, Phase-I,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 ….Complainant
Versus
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
through its Managing Director
F.A.I. Building,
10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110067 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.08.12 Date of Order : 22.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he purchased a Honda City ZX Car bearing registration No. HR26AP9453 in the year 2007 and got it insured. With a view to save his daily expenses on fuel, the complainant got a CNG kit fitted in his car on 19.10.09 from a Govt. approved CNG fitment centre namely Arya’s CNG Centre, Shop No.3, C-Block, Arya Samaj Mandir, Lajpat Nagar-II New Delhi-110024. However, the same did not work for the complainant. Ultimately just after 20 days, he got removed the said CNG kit from his car and continued his vehicle on the conventional mode of fuel i.e. petrol since then. The complainant insured his car with OP i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. w.e.f. 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010. However, he could not renew the insurance of his car before the expiry of the previous insurance. In other words, he could not renew it before 31.12.2010. Consequently, he got a fresh insurance (comprehensive) for his said vehicle from the same company and the opposite party issued on 29.01.2011, after examination of the vehicle in question and on payment of the premium of Rs.9303/-, an insurance policy valid from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 and the value of the vehicle insured was Rs.3,50,000/-; that a fire broke out in the vehicle at Main Market, Gurgaon on 23.03.11 as a result of which it was completely burnt and the Fire Brigade Authorities also reported that 80% of the vehicle was burnt; that the complainant informed the OP and also submitted all the requisite documents; however, OP vide its letter dated 04.11.2011 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was fitted with a CNG kit at the time of accident and the same was not endorsed in the registration certificate and the policy and due to non-disclosure of the material alterations in the insured vehicle, which enhanced the risk, the OP expressed their inability to consider the claim of the complainant and as such rejected his claim. According to the complainant, the vehicle was not fitted with a CNG kit at the time of accident. The CNG kit was got fitted in the vehicle only on 19.10.2009 and the same was removed just after 20 days. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with the OP on 29.01.11 after proper inspection/examination of the vehicle and no CNG kit was found in the vehicle. It is further stated that during the currency of the earlier period of insurance from the OP valid from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010, the vehicle got damaged due to a minor accident and the claim of the complainant was allowed by the OP on 04.06.2010 after inspection/examination of the vehicle on 23.05.2010 and no CNG kit was found in the vehicle. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.03.2012 to the OP but the OP did not reply. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.3,50,000/- towards the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 23.03.2011,
- Direct the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and also cost of the proceedings.
In the written statement the OP has inter-alia stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 04.11.11 for violation/breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and statutory rules and obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The OP was well within its rights to repudiate the claim in case of a breach which cannot be termed as deficiency in service or negligence. It is stated that there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the “CNG Kit” was got removed by the complainant from the vehicle through trained and authorized personnel and the vehicle was restored to its original factory condition. Complainant has nowhere specified or clarified as to what does he mean by “he got removed the said CNG Kit from his car”. The complainant was bound to get the “CNG Kit” endorsed in the “Registration Certificate”. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the complainant upon the inspection dated 29.01.11 is ill founded. The said inspection, as is well known in the market across all the Insurance Companies, is only done to check the vehicle in a rather superficial manner to see that it is in working condition and it has not suffered any accident. There is no question or reason for the insurance agent to look into the engine or verify the mode of running of the subject vehicle. Moreover, the insurance agent can easily be fooled/duped by removing the “CNG Cylinder” from the “Trunk/Boot” of the vehicle and then there will be no way possible for the insurance agent to go into such technical details. It is clarified that the inspection for a fresh insurance policy is conducted by an Insurance Agent and not by Insurance Investigator/Surveyor. The reliance on earlier claims alleged to have been settled by the OP and M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. have no relevance because the same pertained to the minor accidents and had got nothing to do with the installation or alleged removal of CNG Kit. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Choudhary, Constituted Attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
One of the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant is that the Motor Final Survey Report dated 03.11.11 filed on behalf of the OP suffers from many discrepancies and mistakes. The contention though seems to be attractive but it does not carry any weight. We mark the copy of the said report as Mark A for the purposes of identification. No doubt, in the said report the make, chassis etc. of the vehicle have been wrongly mentioned. However, the same is in respect of policy No.75329273 for the period 01.01.11 to 31.12.11 in the name of the complainant. The complainant has filed the copy of the insurance policy in question as Annexure A-3 wherein the policy No. has been mentioned as 75329273 valid from 29.01.11 to 31.12.11. Therefore, the mere wrong mention of the make of the car or its chassis in report Mark A does not make any much difference and the complainant is not entitled to derive any benefit from the said discrepancies. Secondly, as per the admission of the complainant himself had got a CNG kit fitted in the car in question on 19.10.09 from a Govt. approved centre. Admittedly, he did not get an endorsement done in respect of fitting of the CNG kit in the certificate of registration of the car in question. According to him, he had removed the CNG kit from the car in question just after 20 days and had continued to run the vehicle on petrol. On the other hand, as per the report mark A the CNG kit was found at the time of inspection of the far in question on 28.03.11 (date of incident is 23.03.11). It was observed that dicky panel was damaged with the use of some iron rod to open the dicky to remove the CNG cylinder prior to survey and rear floor also having holes for fitment of CNG cylinder, the CNG kit mounting bolt was hanging in the engine room which was confirming CNG kit removed recently and CNG pipes found routed under the floor of insured’s car. In the insurance policy in question itself (copy Annexure A-3) Bi-Fuel Kit (IMT 25) has been mentioned in it which clearly shows that the vehicle in question was fitted with CNG kit even on 01.01.11, i.e. the date of commencement of the policy in question. Therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that he had got removed the CNG kit from the vehicle in question just after 20 days of fitting of the CNG Kit in the vehicle in question. Thus, the complainant suppressed material facts from the OP while lodging the claim. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim in question on this ground was, in our view, perfectly justified. Hence, we hold that the OP is not guilty of deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 22.07.17.
