Haryana

Karnal

CC/275/2015

Parveen Kumar S/o Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.R. Sangwan

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 275 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.9.11.2015

                                                                Date of decision:29.08.2016

 

Praveen Kumar son of Sh. Ishwar Singh resident of village Jani Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company, Ltd. through its Branch Manager opposite Mini Sect. Secvtor-12 Karnal.

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Regd. Office at Iffco Sadan Cl. Distt. Centre Saket, New Delhi 110017.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. M.R.Sangwan Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. A.K.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 Honda City Car bearing registration no.HR05AD 3217 with opposite party no.1, vide cover note no.894522013 valid from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015. On 24.05.2015 the said car met with an accident and caught fire near N.C. College of Engineering Israna. Fire brigade was called to the spot to put out the fire, but the car was totally burnt in the said accident. Intimation to the opposite parties was given. After inspection of the vehicle at the spot, fire report was prepared by the surveyor for the opposite parties. Thereafter, he submitted claim to opposite parties alongwith the required documents for settlement of the claim, but the opposite parties, vide letter dated 1.6.2015, repudiated the claim on the ground that the car was found fitted with LPG and it was observed that LPG was endorsed in the Registration Certificate, but not in the insurance policy. Infact, he had submitted the copy of the old insurance cover note and Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the opposite parties at the time of getting insurance cover note. In both those documents it was mentioned that the vehicle could be used on petrol and LGP. Thus, the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties was illegal and arbitrary and the same amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct  and that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that in the Registration Certificate of the car LPG fuel was endorsed, but the said fuel was not mentioned in the insurance policy for which extra premium was chargeable. Thus, the complainant committed breach of contract. Surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties, who assessed the loss for Rs.5,69,000/- on net of salvage basis subject to fulfillment of policy condition. Surveyor inspected the car on 27.5.2015 and on inspection it was found that the same was fitted with LPG kit, which was not insured with the policy of the car. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and intimation thereof was given to complainant, vide letter dated 01.06.2015. 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 C13 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Sanket Gupta Vice President Ex.O1, affidavit of Jeewan Aggrwal Ex.O2 and documents Ex.O3 to Ex.O9  have 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.                It is not disputed that Honda City Car of complainant bearing registration no.HR-05-AD-3217 was insured with the opposite parties for the period of 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015 and the same met with an accident on 24.05.2015 near N.C. College of Engineering Israna. The car got fire in the said accident and was totally burnt. Opposite parties appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss as Rs.5,69,000/- on net salvage basis. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 1.6.2015, on the ground that at the time of inspection it was found that LPG kit was fitted in the car which was not mentioned in the insurance policy though mentioned in the Registration Certificate.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties laid stress on the contention that in the registration certificate of the car petrol/LPG fuel was mentioned, but the car was insured for petrol fuel only and LPG was not mentioned in the insurance policy for which extra premium of LPG was to be paid by the complainant, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties.

8.                The argument advanced by the leaned counsel for the opposite parties cannot be accepted being devoid of force. Copy of Registration Certificate Ex.C1 shows that in the column of fuel used petrol/LPG was mentioned. This fact makes it emphatically clear that LPG kit was already fitted in the car at the time of purchase by the complainant from the company. Therefore, it cannot be said that the LPG kit was got fitted by the complainant after getting the car insured from the opposite parties. The copy of the insurance policy Ex.C2 shows that the opposite parties nowhere mentioned in the policy that the car was insured for petrol fuel only and not for both petrol/LPG fuel. It was not mentioned as to for which fuel the car was insured. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite parties to take plea that the car was not insured for LPG fuel. Moreover, the copy of the status report of the insurance policy is Ex.C12, wherein fuel type was mentioned as petrol and LPG as per Registration Certificate. The opposite parties insured the car for its full value and did not clarify specifically that the car was being insured for petrol fuel only and not for both the fuels i.e. petrol/LPG. Under such facts and circumstances, looking from any angle, the plea raised by the opposite parties for repudiating the claim that the car was not insured for LPG kit, cannot be accepted. Consequently, repudiation of the claim of the complainant on such ground was neither legal nor justified and the same amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The surveyor of the opposite parties assessed the loss as Rs.5,69,000/- on net salvage basis. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount as compensation for damage of his car.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,69,000/- as compensation for loss on net salvage basis to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. 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: 29.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member