District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 331/2022.
Date of Institution: 22.06.2022.
Date of Order:14.6.2023.
Mr. Pankaj Udas S/o Shri Amar Singh R/o House No. C-82, Sanjay Colony, NIT, Faridabad – 121001.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited, Having its office at:-
Having its office at:
Rider House plot NO. 136, Sector-44 Rd, Sector-44, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh.Suresh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sachinder Bhatia, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle bearing NO. HR-51BS-2541 chasis No. MA3ERLF1S00594961, Engine NO. G12BN572814 Model NO. 2018 Echo White, and the same was purchased on 27.03.2018 and the same was insured from the royal Sundram General Insurance co. Ltd. Opposite party was the insurance company and the complainant was having a valid policy of opposite party bearing NO. MOP5504063 dated 08.03.2019 was issued in favour of the complainant on for a premium of Rs.12884/- providing a total IDV value of said vehicle Rs.304134/- for the period from 14.3.2019 to 13.3.2019. On 08.06.2019 complainant had gone to their relatives home at Chetan Market, Sehatpur, Faridabad Haryana and parked his vehicle in Shani Mandir Chetan Market. On the next day i.e 09.06.2019 the complainant found that said vehicle was not in the parking and the complainant tried his best efforts to find his car but all the efforts were in vain. The complainant had informed the nearest police station regarding the theft of said vehicle and gave a written complaint to police and on that complainant a FIR bearing No. 327 dated 10.06.2019 u/s. 379 was registered against the unknown person. The complainant had informed regarding the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party company and opposite party had assured the complainant that opposite party would abide by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy After few days lockdown was imposed by the Govt. of India in the year March 2020 and due to which complainant did not inquired about the claim. In the month of February 2022 complainant had gone to office of opposite party and one Hemraj official of opposite party company that his claim had been rejected by the opposite party. In a deep shock complainant approached the police officials of P.S.Palla and inquired about the status of his FIR and again no satisfactory answer given by the IO and then complainant on 09.03.2022 filed application of status report of the above said FIR before Ld. JMIC Faridabad court and IO/SHO was summoned by the court to file the report on 29.04.2022. On 29.04.2022 report was filed by the SHIO/IO of concern PS that the said vehicle was not found. Despite going through all the document son record, facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties did not make the payment of the claimed amount of Rs.304134/- to the complainant. 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) pay the amount of Rs.3,04,134/- with interest @ 24% p.a. since date of due till the date of realization of the amount in full to the complainant jointly and severally.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that a private car package policy No. MOP5504063000100 valid form 14.3.2019 to 13.03.2020 was issued in favour of the complainant. It was submitted that the present complaint was not tenable in the eyes of law, unwarranted & bad in law and had been filed as an abuse of process of law and obtained unlawfully benefit the claim of the complainant had been decided as per the investigation report submitted by the investigator appointed by the opposite party and in this regard and at the time of investigation the complainant clearly stated and made a written statement that at the time of theft of insured vehicle No. HR-51B-2541 was being used for tax purposes and because of this reason and the statement of the complainant it clearly proves that the insured was using the said vehicle for commercial purposes but at the same time the policy issued by the opposite party for personal use and not for commercial purposes and the policy was issued under package policy private vehicle valid from 14.3.2019 to 13.03.2020 and alongwith its registration certificate also issued under private registration and not for taxi/commercial purposes. Opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance company by using the insured vehicle for commercial purposes as clearly admitted by the complainant and with the malafide intention filed the present complaint to grab the claim amount form the insurance company. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.. with the prayer to: a) pay the amount of Rs.3,04,134/- with interest @ 24% p.a. since date of due till the date of realization of the amount in full to the complainant jointly and severally. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Rc.VW1/1 – affidavit of Pankaj Udas,, Ex.CW1/A – RC, Ex.CW1/B (colly) – insurance policy, Ex.CW1/C (colly) – FIR, Ex.CW1/D – Pargati report, On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Rajasankar,K – working as Head-Motor Legal Process & System at M/s. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ex.-01 – statement of Pankaj Udas,, Ex.O2 – Theft Investigation report, Ex.O3 – Certificate cum policy schedule,, Ex.O4 – letter dated 17.03.2020
6. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
7. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 25%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
8. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of vehicle : Rs.3,04,134.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.,3,03,134.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 76,033.50
Total : Rs. 2,27,100.50
9. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,27,100.50 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on:14.06..2023 (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.
