Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/255/2020

Ikjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bhanu Sharma and Bawa Karanbir Singh

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/255/2020
Date of Institution	:	07/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	04/11/2022

 

Ikjot Singh son of Sh. Pritpal Singh r/o H.No.844, Shivalik City, Sector 127, Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Servicing Office of Insurer (Regional Office) 1^st Floor, SCO 350, 351, 352, Sector
34-A, Chandigarh 160034.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bhanu Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ram Pal, Advocate, Proxy for Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Ikjot Singh, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased a Hyundai Creta 1.6 Crdi AT-SX (polar white), bearing chassis No.MALC381UMJM487699, engine No.D4FBJM692850 (hereinafter referred to as the “subject car”) from M/s Ultimately Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vide invoice dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure C-1) for total sale consideration of ₹15,16,975/-. The aforesaid car was financed through Yes Bank Ltd. and the same was insured by the OP at the time of purchase vide insurance policy (Annexure C-2) for the period from 12.12.2018 to 11.12.2021 after receiving gross premium of ₹62,446/-. As the complainant wanted to purchase registration No.PB65 AU 0034 for his new car, therefore he participated in the e-auction and purchased the said number for ₹12,500/- being the highest bidder.  The complainant deposited the entire amount of ₹12,500/- with the RTA, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on 18.2.2019. Thereafter the complainant initiated the registration process (Annexure C-4) with the Govt. of Punjab, SAS Nagar RTA on 30.7.2019 and deposited the entire fee through online process.  On 1.9.2019, the complainant went to Delhi to visit his sister and had parked the said car outside her house. On the next morning i.e.2.9.2019 at around 5.15 a.m. when the complainant came out, he found his car was stolen. The incident was captured in the CCTV installed at his sister’s house and video of the CCTV footage is Annexure C-6.  Thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the e-police station, Model Town, North West Delhi, which resulted in registration of FIR No.031092 dated 2.9.2019 (Annexure C-5).  Immediately after lodging FIR, complainant contacted the OP with regard to the insurance claim qua the stolen car on 3.9.2019 and submitted motor insurance claim form (Annexure C-7) on 16.9.2019.  After waiting for about a month, when the complainant did not get any response from the OP, he again visited the office of the OP to know about the status of his claim and at that time he was assured by the OP that his claim will be cleared shortly. Later on, the complainant sent an email to the Insurance company regarding clearance of his claim and in its reply, OP informed that his claim has been rejected as the car in question was not registered with the RTA at the relevant time.  Despite of the fact that the OP was informed that the registration process is pending with the RTA office, OP has not cleared the claim of the complainant.  In this manner, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as the genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by it. OP was requested several times by the complainant to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply by admitting that the aforesaid car was insured with it at the relevant time.  However, it is alleged that as it was found by the investigator that the car was not registered with the RTA at the time of theft, claim of the complainant falls under condition No.8 of the insurance policy and accordingly the same was repudiated by the OP.  It is admitted that the complainant has submitted the claim form with the OP on 16.9.2019 and after that it had appointed investigator to investigate and verify the matter and as janta curfew was declared on 22.3.2020, repudiation letter was despatched to the complainant on 16.6.2020.  It is denied that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.   The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, the complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.  For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for?
3. Relief.

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. Admittedly, the car in question was purchased by the complainant vide invoice (Annexure C-1) for total sale consideration of ₹15,16,975/-.  It is further an admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid car was insured by the OP at the time of its sale in favour of the complainant and at that time the OP had issued insurance policy (Annexure C-2), after receiving premium of ₹62,446/- from the complainant by giving particulars of the vehicle without mentioning any registration No. as the same was yet to be registered.  It is further an admitted case of the parties that on the intervening night of 1/2.9.2019, the aforesaid car was stolen from Delhi when the same was parked by the complainant outside his sister’s house and he came to know about its theft on the next morning i.e. 2.9.2019 at around 5.15 a.m and he immediately reported the matter to the police, which resulted in lodging FIR (Annexure C-5).  It is further an admitted case of the parties that thereafter the complainant had lodged insurance claim qua the stolen car with the OP by filling and submitting the claim form (C-7).  It is further an admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure C-8).  The case of the complainant is that as the aforesaid car was got insured from OP at the time of purchase of the same and no registration no. of the car was even provided at that time to the complainant, and further when the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the car in question is not registered with the RTA, despite of the fact that the registration No. was allotted to the complainant through e-auction and the registration process was pending with the RTA, the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and he is entitled for the claim as set up in the consumer complaint.  On the other hand, the defence of the OP is that as the car in question was not registered at the relevant time with the RTA, the claim of the complainant, being in violation of condition No.8 of the insurance policy, was rightly repudiated by the OP.
6. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP by holding that there is violation of condition No.8 of insurance policy, as is the defence of the OP.
7. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, are discussed as under:-

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that at the relevant time the car in question was insured with the OP and even at the time of issuance of policy (Annexure C-2) by the OP in favour of the complainant, the same was not registered with any RTA and the said policy was issued by the OP by receiving gross premium of ₹62,446/- from the complainant by mentioning the model, engine and chassis no. etc. and also that the said car was stolen from Delhi, as is also evident from the copy of FIR (Annexure C-5), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant has proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and he is entitled for the claim as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if there is violation of condition No.8 of the policy by the complainant due to non-registration of the car in question and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, as is the defence of the OP.
2. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended with vehemence that as it stands proved that OP had issued policy (Annexure C-2) qua the car in question at the time of its purchase and even at that time no registration no. of the car was available, and the said policy was issued by giving particulars i.e. engine no., chassis no. and name of owner (i.e. the complainant) by receiving gross premium of ₹62,446/- from the complainant, there is no violation of condition No.8 of the policy and the complainant has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP by not clearing his claim and he is entitled for the claim as prayed for.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has stated that as it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant could not get the car in question registered and at the relevant time i.e. at the time of theft of the said car it was not registered with any RTA, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as there was violation of condition No.8 of the policy.  There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the OP as it is clear on record that even at the time of purchase of policy (Annexure C-2) by the complainant, registration No. of the car was not issued to the complainant and the OP had opted to issue the said policy to the complainant on the basis of sale documents issued by the dealer by mentioning the name of the owner as  Ikjot Singh (complainant) and also by referring the chassis no. and engine no. etc. of the car by receiving an amount of ₹62,446/- as premium.  Further, when it has come on record that the registration no. of the car in question was purchased by the complainant through e-auction and registration No.PB65 AU 0034 was allotted to him, being the highest bidder, as is also evident from Annexure C-3, and further that the complainant had also initiated the process for registration of the vehicle with the RTA, SAS Nagar, Mohali, as is also evident from Annexure C-4, it is clear that there is no violation of condition No.8 of the policy which says as under :-

          “The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy.”

3. Moreover, when it has come on record that the OP Insurance Company had provided insurance cover to the car in question without insisting for its registration, temporary or permanent, before accepting the proposal for insurance, OP cannot take advantage of offence under Section 192 read with Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the repudiation of the claim on the said ground cannot be justified.  It was also held by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Indus, 2018 (2) CPJ 46 as under :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 21 (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 192 and 39 Theft of Vehicle – Claim repudiated on the ground that subject vehicle was not having a valid registration on the date of the alleged theft – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Vehicle was stolen while parked in parking of tourism complex – Held, at the time of insurance subject vehicle was unregistered – Despite that insurance company provided insurance cover to subject vehicle without insisting for its registration, temporarily or permanent, before accepting proposal for insurance – Therefore, insurance company cannot take advantage of offence under Section 192 read with Section 39 of MV Act committed by insured by driving vehicle from his residence to hospital much earlier to theft of vehicle which was parked in parking lot of hospital – Repudiation not justified – Revision petition dismissed.”

8. In the light of the facts of the present consumer complaint coupled with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Shyam Indus (surpa), it is safe to hold that repudiation of the genuine claim of complainant by the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint.

Relief

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay the IDV of the car in question i.e. ₹14,26,857/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 7.8.2020 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 04/11/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member