Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/40/2015

Tapan Meher - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO (Generla Insurance Company Ltd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Bivakisha Mahapatra

24 Jun 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 40/2015

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Tapan Meher,

S/O- Haradhan Meher,

R/O-Singhpali, PO-Topa ,

Ps-Attabira, Dist- Bargarh, Odisha.                              …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.

Regd Office Sadan Saket CI

Dist-Centre New Delhi-110017

2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd

Regd Office Sadan Saket CI, Dist-Centre New Delhi-110017

Represented through Branch Head IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd, Sambalpur Branch (Budharaja)

•  

3. M/S OSL Auto Car Private Ltd, Sambalpur,

Prop; Mahima Mishra, Po/Ps-Sambalpur(Padhanpali)

•  

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate & associates
2. For the O.P. 1 &2                         :- Sri. B.K.Purohit, Advocate & Associates.
3. For the O.P. 3                              :- Ex-parte

 

DATE OF HEARING :19.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 24.06.2022

Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member:          

1. Brief Facts of the Complaint case is that the Complainant perused the vehicle from O.P. No.3, for a consideration of Rs. 6,16,669/- with the financial assistance of Magma Finance corporation Ltd, Sambalpur Branch. The O.P. No.1 & 2 are the insurance Company. The Complainant got the RC Book issued by RTO Authority Sambalpur bearing Registration No. OR 15-S-3320 and insurance policy issued by O.P. No.2 i.e. IFFCO TOKIO, Sambalpur Branch bearing Policy (Cover Note) No. 1-17 CMEV3 valid from Dt. 06.03.2012 to dt. 05.03.2013 covering liabilities inter-alia damage to the vehicle of insured vehicle. The O.P. No.1 has got its head office at New Delhi and branch offices in different parts of India including O.P. No.2 at Sambalpur in the state of Odisha within the territorial Jurisdiction of this forum.

On dtd 29.11.2012 while the Complainant was returning from a marriage function with his friends and relatives in the said vehicle bearing No. No. OR 15-S-3320, On the way near Khandhahota Chock, one night express bus suddenly came in front of his vehicle and to escape from collision, damage to vehicle and injuries to occupants of the vehicle the driver turn the vehicle to left side and applied the brake, the vehicle become imbalance and capsize as a result amongst other the chamber, left side wheel & chassis sustained extensive damage, but fortunately no occupants of the vehicle sustain any injury. Soon after the accident the matter was reported before Radrakhok Police Station who registered a case bearing P.S case No. 735 dtd 30.11.2012. The Complainant also immediately brought to the knowledge of the O.P. No.2 the facts regarding the accident. As per the requirement of the O.P. No.2, the Complainant supplied documents like R.C. Book, Driving License, and Fitness certificate. In furtherance to supply of the required documents, the O.P. No.2 appointed its authorized survivor to assess the loss sustained to the damaged vehicle.

Thereafter with the consent of the O.P. No.2, the Complainant shifted the damaged vehicle to the O.P. No.3 who is the authorized dealer of M/S OSL Auto Car Private Ltd, Sambalpur for its repair. The authorised survivor of the O.P. No.2 went to the service station/ O.P. No.3 and took photograph made necessary verification and inspection of the damaged parts. They also has a discussion with the mechanics and other authorities of the O.P. No.3 and submitted its report to the O.P. No.2 to the affect that the total loss sustain to the vehicle is to extent of Rs. 2,01,500/- in term of money. The O.P.No.2 assured the Complainant that the matter has been forwarded to their head office and very shortly the claim amount as assessed by their survivor will be settled. After some days, the Complainant got a letter from the IFFCO Tokio G.I.C Ltd bearing Ref. No. Repudiation No. 33418674/13-14 dtd. 19.07.2013 Without mentioning the name, address or designation of the signatory, wherein the Complainant was informed that the claim for damaged of the vehicle has been repudiated by the IFFCO Tokio G.I.C. Ltd since the caption motor vehicle is insured under private Car Package policy, but registered as “Maxi Cab” which violate the terms and condition of the policy. The Complainant was going to the office of the O.P. No.2 served times and all the time the Branch head of the O.P. No.2 was assuring the Complainant that he has written to the head office for early settlement of the claim and he will get the claim settled soon, but when even after lapses of the more then about 22 months of so call repudiation of the claim vide letter No. 33418674/13-14 dtd. 19.07.2013 as of the Complainant was not settled, the Complainant filed this case.

2. The version of the O.P. NO.1 & 2 is that the present case is not a consumer dispute as per the provision of C.P. Act. There was also never any deficiency in rendering services by the O.P. No.1 & 2 so as to attract O.P. No.1 & 2 is barred by limitation as the repudiation was done by the insurance company on 19.07.2013 and as per the provision of the consumer protection Act, 1986 the case should have been filed within two years from the date of repudiation. But the Complainant has come up with this case beyond two years and accordingly the case is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation. The IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Bhubaneswar Branch has issued one private car policy of insurance bearing No. 79573157, which was valid from 06.03.2012 to 05.03.2013. During the validity of this policy, the insured intimated the insurance company that on 29.11.2012 the insured vehicle met an accident while coming from Boudh with marriage party near Khandahata Chowk and there was a damage to the vehicle. The insurance Company, upon receipt of such intimation, engaged surveyor & loss Assessor Sri. Manoj Hota to assess the damaged and in its usual course the insured took the vehicle to the authorized dealer M/S OSL Auto Car Pvt.Ltd and the loss was assessed at Rs. 1,35,000 /- by the said surveyor, after deducting the policy excess and salvage.

The Insurance Company on scrutinizing the claim found that the insured had disclosed before the Insurance Company that the vehicle would be used as private vehicle and accordingly premium was calculated. But when the Registration certificate of the vehicle was verified, it was ascertained that the vehicle was registered as a Maxi-Cab having seating capacity ‘9’ and the Tax payment is monthly tax payment. So it was apparent from the record that the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle under the category of Maxi-Cab and this being a violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the insured and communicated the same in a speaking letter of repudiation dtd. 19.07.2013.

          As per the O.P. version the premium for Maxi-Cab includes the premium of the passengers for commercial use of the vehicle. But in case of private car, the same is less and in order to keep the insurance company in dark, deliberately the insured had paid the premium for private vehicle but vehicles was being registered and used as a Maxi-Cab. So, there was non- disclosure of materials fact before the Insurance company and that non-disclosure led the Insurance Company to calculate lesser premium and this goes to the root of the matter of uberima Fides and accordingly the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the insured. O.P. No.3 is exparte as per order dtd. 23.11.2016.

3. Accordingly to the above facts, submission and versions of the Complainant and O.Ps, it is found that the vehicle was not insured properly and the actual premium of the policy was not paid properly as the vehicle was under the category of Maxi-Cab but the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle, the Complainant is not liable for any claim, as prayed in the complaint petition.

Hence it is ordered that the Complaint petition is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24^th  day of June, 2022.

A free copy of the order may be supplied to the parties.