Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 590

                                                                   Instituted on     : 15.11.2019

                                                                   Decided on       : 29.04.2024.

Ravi s/o Sh. Dharambir Singh, r/o H. No. 56/8, Kalanaur, Teh. Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak

                                                                                      ..............Complainant.

                             Vs.

M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Soulsitce Building, Plot No. 52, Ground Floor, Sector-44. Gurugram.

                                                                             ……….opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Rajnesh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are thathe is owner of a car bearing No. HR-12N-4699 and the same insured with the opposite party  vide policy No. 22311/58915767/00/002 for a period form 18/09/2018 to 17/09/2018 against an assured amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The complainant alongwith his friend Sh. Shekhar and a neighbor Sh. Dharampal, was going from district Hissarto Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak while travelling in his alleged car. Sh. Shekhar who was having some work in village Bond, Distt. Bhiwani and when the car reached at Malposh Road from village Kharar situated at Rohtak-Bhiwani road, they noticed some smoke was oozing out from the AC system of the car. The complainant stopped the car and said Shekharstarted uncovering the Bonnet, in the meanwhile there was a blast and the engine caught fire. In the process Sh. Shekhar sustained burn injuries on his face, head, neck, hand and other parts of his body. He was taken to the nearest hospital at Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak. After that complainant informed the opposite partyregarding  the incident and a DD report no. 13 dated 27/12/2018was entered in the Police Post Kharak Kalan, Distt. Bhiwani.The opposite party appointed a surveyor who duly surveyed the the vehicle and after that respondent appointed an investigator who investigated the matter andassured the complainant that the claim amount will be disbursedwithin one month and he also demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- for the case.The complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the amount of compensation but the opposite partyvide its letter dated 24/05/2019has repudiated the claim on the flimsy grounds that the vehicle is being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations as to use. The complainant told to the opposite party that his earning for his livelihood is by plying a taxi and the registration number of the said taxi is HR-46E/7100. The opposite party withmalafide intention repudiated the claim by mentioning the Car No. HR-12N/4699 as taxi in place of HR-46E/7100. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.350000/- alongwith interest from the date of incident till the date of actual realization of the amount,  and also to pay Rs.100000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that  complainant had insured his vehicle, one Swift Dzire, bearing Registration No. HR-12-N-4699, from the opposite party’s company vide Policy No. 22311/58915767/00/002 for the period 18.09.2018 to 17.09.2019 against an assured sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Complainant raised a claimwith the respondent company. The respondent company sought the  services of Allied Technical Services for the purpose of conducting the investigation, which submitted its report on 20.02.2019.In the investigation report, it was found that: “The complainant had been using the vehicle for hire and reward purposes, which was in direct violation of the terms of the policy. The respondent company also caused a survey of the accident and the vehicle to be conducted. Even according to the survey report dated 05.04.2019 the claim of the complainant was recommended to be a “No Claim”, as even according to the survey report it was found that the insured was using the vehicle as his source of income. The same was in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, under which, the use of the vehicle  was intended to be private only, to the exclusions of any commercial gain. The independent surveyor submitted his report showing loss to vehicle to an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lacs forty thousand only) but the same was not paid for the reasons detailed above.  Hence the claim  of the complainant was repudiated vide letterd dated 24.05.2019 due to violations of general exceptions of policy wordings”.  All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15and closed his evidence on dated 03.08.2021.          Learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and thereafter failed to conclude its evidence and the evidence of opposite party was closed by the order dated 06.09.2022 of this Commission.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 24.05.2019 on the ground that the vehicle was used to ply for hire and reward basis. So as per the terms and conditions of the policy, insurance company is not liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. It has been further submitted that the company shall not be liable under this policyin respect of General exceptions of policy wordings as under: “any accidental loss damage and/or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle insured herein is (a) being used otherwise than in accordance with the “Limitations as to use”. There is violation of condition no.4 of the insurance policy. Hence the claim has been repudiated. To prove the same opposite party has placed on record 5 documents i.e. insurance policy, investigation report issued by the Allied Technical Services Ex.R2, “Motor surveyor report” dated 05.04.2019 issued by Sanjay KumarVerma as Ex.R3, photocopy of statement of complainant as Ex.R4 and no claim letter as Ex.R5. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and also placed on record two affidavits, i.e. one of himself and other of Dharampal @ Shekhar s/o Shri Kishan r/o village-Bond Kalan, District Bhiwani as Ex.CW2/A.

6.                We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The main contention of the complainant is that the vehicle was being used by the complainant for commercial purposes to earn his livelihood so the complainant is not entitled for claim. The complainant has placed on record insurance policy of vehicle bearing no.HR46E7100 Ex.C13 and RC Ex.C14  to prove the fact that complainant has have another vehicle which was being used by him for the commercial purpose. The registration of the vehicle in question is HR12N4669and the same was registered with the registration authority as a personal vehicle. The insurance company took a plea that co-occupant namely Dharampal @ Shekhar was travelling on the day of accident with the complainant and they were going to Bhiwani and Dharampal offered the complainant that he will pay for the diesel. The insurance company considered the above mentioned statement that vehicle was taken away on hire and reward basis. But as per our opinion a wrong plea has been taken by the opposite party as the complainant has not taken any amount as reward from the Dharampal. Moreover opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that how much amount was taken by the complainant from Dharampal or the diesel was got refilled in the car by the Dharampal. On the other hand, Dharampal in his affidavit Ex.CW2/A has submitted that he had taken the car without hiring on rent and he did not pay any amount for the same. Hence a wrong plea has been taken by the opposite party and complainant is entitled for the claim amount. As per policy the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.350000/- and the surveyor as per his report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss of Rs.282647/- which is more than 75% of IDV. Hence the same comes under total loss and the complainant is entitled for the IDV of vehicle after deduction of scrap value which we have assessed as Rs.50000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.300000/-(Rs.350000/- less Rs.500000/- as scrap value) against the insurance claim to be paid by the opposite party. As per RC the vehicle in question was hypothecated with the Shriram Finance Limited and at the time of arguments a document ‘Annexure JNA’ has been placed on record by the complainant as per which no loan amount is pending against the complainant. The loan accounthas been terminated.  Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.300000/-(Rupees three lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint  i.e. 15.11.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to send a letter to the Registration Authority for cancellation of RC and not to use the vehicle. Complainant is also at liberty to sell the vehicle in scrap.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

29.04.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member