District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.304/2021.
Date of Institution: 01.07.2021.
Date of Order: 02.12.2022
Mahender Singh Bisht S/o Shri laste Shri Bharat Singh Bisht resident of House No. 490, Parvatia Colony, Part-ii, Gali No. 10, NIT, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Liberty General Insurance Limited, Regd. & Corp. Office, 10th floor Tower-A Peninsula Business park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.
Service will be affected at: Liberty General Insurance Limited Unit No. 201-202, Second floor of Ocean heights, Block K-4, Sector-18, Noida, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201301.
2. M/s. Pasco Automobiles, 14/4, Main Mathura Road, Opp. Mewla Maharajpur, Metro Station, Faridabad.
3. Saraswati Automobiles, Faridabad, Bata Road, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Giriraj Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. O.P.Gaur, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rajeev Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party NO.3 exparte vide order dated 15.02.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that he was the regd. Owner of motor car i.e. Maruti Vitara Brezza VDI AMT bearing its registration NO. HR-51-BD-7400, Chasis No. MANYFb1SKB519545 valid from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and the complainant had purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 202520010119700109900000 from the opposite party No.1 of his motor car i.e.Maruti Vitara Brezza VDI AMT bearing its registration NO. HR-51-BD-7400, Chasis No. MANYFB1SKB519545 and the said policy was valid from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021. On 13.08.2020 at about 9.30 pm, the brother of complainant namely Diwan Singh Bisht was driving the said car bearing NO. HR-51-BD-7400 while coming back from his office to their residence suddenly a Biker come in front of the car and to save the said biker, the brother of the complainant turned left consequently the car climb on ramp height about 2.5 – 3 feet and turned turtle resulting the above mention car had damaged badly and front glass was also broken. On this, complainant had applied for insurance claim with the opposite parties vide claim No. 200101202520110015001 dated 13.08.2020 and supplied all the relevant documents as per demand of the opposite parties but the opposite party No.1 in the garb of surveyor report had issued a letter inviting comments vide letter dated 23.09.2020 and asked the complainant for the comments within 7 days from the receipt of that letter and for which the complainant had filed a reply of the said
letter on dated 17.10.2020 to opposite party No.1 in which it was clearly told that alloy fitted on the vehicle was not the reason of the incident dated 13.08.2020 but to save a bike who suddenly come in front of the vehicle and due to which the vehicle clamed on ramp and turned turtle. It was submitted that the alloy fitte din the vehicle of the complainant was as per standards. The complainant visited the opposite party and asked to settle the claim of vehicle in question. The complainant submitted the claim form and tendered all the relevant documents alongwith bills as required by the representative of the opposite parties and it was also assured by the opposite parties that they would ready to pay/released only 75% after deduction 25% of the claim amount to the complainant vide their mail while the complainant was entitled to get the full amount of claim from the opposite parties as the complainant had paid the bill amount from his pocket in shape of DD NO. 192365 dated 09.09.2020 amounting to Rs.93,400/- to opposite party, DD No. 192365 dated 09.09.2020 amounting to rs.93,400/- alongwith mails dated 03.03.2012 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for submitting the documents. The opposite party No.1 again issued another letter dated 12.10.2020 repudiated the claim of the complainant in the garb of condition No. 8 of the policy only to harass and humiliate the complainant without any cause or justification. The complainant sent legal notice dated 09.02.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make payment of a sum of Rs.93,400/- towards claim amount alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident and till the date of its actual realization of amount in question.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 51,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the motor insurance policy No. 2025-200101-19-7001099-00-000 for the period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 was obtained in the name of Mr. Mahender Singh Bisht r/o house No. 490, Gali NO.10, Parvatiya Colony, Part II, 60 feet road, Sector-22, Faridabad in respect of “Brezza car” bearing registration NO. HR-51BD-7400 for insured declared value at Rs.7,46,150/-. It was submitted that an “intimation of occurrence” was received by the insurance company in respect of occurrence of Brezza car No. HR-51BD-7400 allegedly on 13.08.2020. Accordingly, the insurance company deputed an independent and qualified IRDA Licenced surveyor (Section 64 UM, the Insurance Act, 1938 read with the insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Insurance surveyors & loss assessors) regulations, 2015 to assess the loss & damages, if any, to Breez No. HR-51BD-7400. As a result, the surveyor carried out the survey in respect of the alleged damages, It was submitted that during survey, the insured tendered claim form, in addition to his statement in writing being independently, willing and voluntarily dated 17.08.2020 to the surveyor. In terms of claim form, the insured claimed that “his brother was coming back to his houe in night from office. One biker abruptly came at front in a gali so in an attempt to save him, the brother took a sharp turn. As a result, the car climbed at ramp towards its right side, then, turned turtle. Some object struck to rear glass which is broken” In furtherance thereof, the surveyor furnished his survey report to the insurance company inter-alia arriving at his findings as under:
- Insured vehicle was fitted with “after market non-standard alloys/tyres” which were substantially responsible for over turning of insured vehicle.
Accordingly, on the basis of the claim documents furnished by the insured and the survey report, the insurance company had thoroughly and carefully investigated into the subject claim and observed that the insured has committed fundamental beach of terms & conditions of the motor insurance policy, while using and plying Brezza car No. HR-51BD-7400 inter alia condition NO. 8 thereof. Admittedly, the insured car was fitted with “after market non standard alloys/tyres” which directly contributed over turning of the vehicle, thus, substantially responsible to such loss. As a matter of technical fact, the car was overturned due to notification in the vehicle against the manufacturer adaption of vehicle, constitute fundamental breach of condition NO.8 of the motor insurance policy being intentionally, purposely and knowingly. However, the insurance company vide its letter dated 23.09.2020 invited explanation within 7 days from the complainant. But on the contrary, the complainant had failed to forward his any explanation, hence, no other option was left with the insurance company except to repudiate the subject claim vide its letter dated 12.10.2020. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the alleged vehicle of the complainant was got insured from opposite party No.1. The said alleged vehicle was got accident and the complainant lodged the insurance claim with the opposite party No.1 which was repudiated by opposite party No.1. The complainant got the said alleged vehicle repaired from the answering opposite party after making complete payment of the said repair work on 09.09.2020 vide cheque bearing No. 192365 dated 09.09.2020
for an amount of Rs.93,400/- favouring ‘Pasco Automobiles’ and driving the alleged vehicle since then trouble free and without any problem and defect free. No allegation was made out by the complainant in the alleged complain with respect to the repair work done by the answering opposite party and neither any allegation nor any cause of action nor any prayer was sought by the complainant against the answering opposite party in the complaint. The complainant was completely satisfied with the performance/repair work performed by the answering opposite party on the alleged vehicle. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by opposite party No.1 on which the answering opposite party had no control, while the complainant paid the complete repair work amount and there was neither any deficiency on the part of the answering opposite party nor any loss to the complainant due to the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party was an authorized dealer, who sells and repair/service vehicles made and manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. . The name of the opposite party No.2 had been improperly joined as opposite party and needs to be removed from the array of opposite parties as there was neither any cause of action against the answering opposite party nor any loss was caused to the complainant by the answering opposite party nor there was any specific allegation against the answering opposite party nor any specific relief was sought by the complainant from the answering opposite party. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice issued to opposite party No.3 on 10.012022 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days elapsed. Hence, opposite party NO.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.02.2022.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file as well as written arguments have been perused.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Liberty General Insurance Limited & Ors. with the prayer to: a) make payment of a sum of Rs.93,400/- towards claim amount alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident and till the date of its actual
realization of amount in question. b)pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 51,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Mahender Singh Bisht, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C-2 – insurance policy, Ex.C-3 – Driving licence,, Ex.C-4 – letter inviting comments dated 23.09.2020, Ex.C-5 – letter dated 17.10.2020 regarding reply to letter dated 23.09.202, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt, Ex.C-7 – job card, Ex. C-8 – photocopy of demand draft, Ex.C-9 – email dated 08.09.2020 regarding non standard the claim @ 25% for outside alloy fitted, Ex. C-11 – repudiation letter dated 12.10.2020, Ex.C-12 – legal notice, Ex.C-13to 16 – postal receipts.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 – affidavit of Ms. Shraddha Kinare, AVP & Corporate Legal Manager, M/s. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., 10th floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel ((West) Mumbai , Annx.R/1 – insurance policy containing terms &conditions, Annx.R/2 – Motor survey report, Annx.R/3 – claim form, Annx. R/4 – statement dated 17.08.202 of Mahender Singh Bisht, Annx.R/5 – letter inviting comments, Annx.R/6 – repudiation letter dated 12.10.2020.
8. In this case, the complainant was the regd. Owner of motor car i.e. Maruti Vitara Brezza VDI AMT bearing its registration NO. HR-51-BD-7400, Chasis No. MANYFb1SKB519545 valid from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and the complainant had purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 202520010119700109900000 from the opposite party No.1 of his motor car i.e.Maruti Vitara Brezza VDI AMT bearing its registration NO. HR-51-BD-7400, valid from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 vide Ex.C-2. On 13.08.2020 at about 9.30 pm, the brother of complainant namely Diwan Singh Bisht was driving the said car bearing No. HR-51-BD-7400 while coming back from his office to their residence suddenly a Biker come in front of the car and to save the said biker, the brother of the complainant turned left consequently the car climb on ramp height about 2.5 – 3 feet and turned turtle resulting the above mention car had damaged badly and front glass was also broken. The complainant lodged insurance claim with the insurance company. As per email dated 08.09.2020 vide Ex.C-9 in which it has been mentioned that “please provide consent latter for non standard the claim @ 25% for outside alloy fitted. It is evident from repudiation letter dated 12.12.2020 vide Annx.R/6 that “were are in receipt of survey report and as per surveyor’s observation we find that vehicle was fitted with after market non-standard alloys/tires which were substantially responsible for overturning of insured vehicle. Same were not declared in the proposal form and as such your statements and/or answers on the basis of which insurance was granted found to be untrue. Hence, claim recommended for repudiation under policy condition No.8.” As per letter dated 17.10.2020 vide Ex.C-5 it has been mentioned that the alloy fitted on the vehicle is not the reason of the incident/accident but to save a bike rider who is suddenly come in front of the vehicle due to which the vehicle climbed on ramp and then turned turtle.
9. After going through the evidence led by parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party NO.1 is directed to process the claim of the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of order and pay the due amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 02.12..2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
