Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-39/2019
Sachin Tyagi s/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Tyagi
R/o B-35, Ground Floor, Block-B, Vikas
Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi-110059 ...Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Claim hub,
2E/25, 3rd Floor, in front of Bank of India,
Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 19.02.2019
Date of Order: 21.08.2023
Coram: Shri InderJeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Vyas Muni Rai
ORDER
1.1. The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Sachin Tyagi (in short the complainant) against National Insurance Company Limited (in short the OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1.2. The complainant is a registered owner of the vehicle no. DL-1CW-5462. The said vehicle of the complainant is insured with the OP vide policy no. 361801/31/16/6300011818 with validity w.e.f. 07.02.2017 to 06.02.2018.
1.3. The above said vehicle was being driven by father of the complainant on 05.07.2017 and vehicle met with an accident on the way to Garh Mukhteshwar. FIR no. 0745/2017 was registered in P.S. Hapur, U.P. on the direction of Hon’ble Court of Hapur vide order dated 30.06.2018. The complainant, after the accident, brought the vehicle to the authorized service centre of OP at Hyundai Service Centre, whereas the repair estimate of Rs. 1,51,400/- was advised/prepared. Thereafter, complainant got repaired vehicle from Faizan Motor, Hapur Road, Garh Mukhteshwar, UP and Rs. 22,300/- was paid by the complainant as labour and denting- painting charges and in addition the complainant also spent Rs. 86,402/- vide bills dated 15.07.2017 for purchasing of the different parts of vehicle.
1.4. After the accident, complainant immediately informed to the company/OP on 07.07.2017. The complainant lodged damage claim with the OP. Insurnace company/OP demanded various documents from the complainant vide letter dated 11.04.2018, which were personally provided by the complainant against the receipt issued by the OP. Complainant visited many a times to the office of OP but in vain, thereafter, complainant sent a registered letter dated 20.11.2018 with request to process the claim, failing which the complainant will take recourse to the court of law. The OP vide letter dated 30.11.2018 closed the claim for want of completion of necessary formalities.
1.5. The complainant faced immense mental and physical agony due to illegal acts of OP and has prayed to pass directions to OP to make the payment of Rs. 1,08,700/- to the complainant for the claim of the accident of the vehicle; Rs. 2,00,000/- as monetary compensation for mental agony and harassment, apart from Rs. 50,000/- as damages to be paid by OP.
1.6. The complainant also served legal notice dated 20.11.2018 to the OP with proof of postal receipt, wherein, inter alia, it was requested to pass the claim failing which the complainant will take recourse to the competent court of law having jurisdiction in the matter.
1.7. The complaint is accompanied with copy of the policy document, copy of the order of Hon’ble Court at Hapur with direction to lodge the FIR, copy of estimate by Hyundai Service Centre of OP voucher of bill for Rs. 22,300/- and for Rs. 86,402/- dated 15.07.2017 from Faizan Motor, Hapur Road, copy of intimation letter dated 07.07.2017 to OP, copy of letter dated 30.11.2018 issued by OP for close of claim.
2.1. OP has filed its detailed reply under the signature of Sh. Raghunath Pawar, Administrative Officer (Legal). Insurance policy was issued for the vehicle bearing registration no. DL1YE1582. After receiving the intimation of accident of vehicle from the complainant, surveyor was appointed for assessment of loss, who submitted his report dated 08.07.2017 after physical inspection of the vehicle; Surveyor wrote a letter dated 18.07.2017 to the complainant seeking clarifications as the vehicle registered was under the commercial class and the vehicle was allotted registration number DL-1YE- 1582 from the Authority. But at the time of accident, it was found from concerned registration authority that the registration number of vehicle had been changed and new registration no. DL-1CW-5462 was allotted against same engine and chasis number. The complainant failed to reply as how the class of vehicle has been changed without intimation to insurer. At the time of accident on 05.07.2017, there was no insurance cover against vehicle no. DL-1CW-5462 with the OP. OP deputed its investigator for verification of vehicle mentioned in the claim form by the complainant. It was found from the concerned authority i.e. Transport Authority, Mall Road that said vehicle bearing no. DL-1YE-1582 changed its class of vehicle and got newly registration no. DL-1CW-5462 by the process of conversion dated 03.05.2017.
2.2. Surveyor appointed by OP sent letters dated 15.09.2017 to the complainant for submitting the bill and estimated expenses for the damaged vehicle followed by a reminder dated 15.11.2017 but complainant kept silent. Further, complainant submitted estimate of expenses dated 06.07.2017 prepared by M/s Hapur Hyundai and subsequently he changed the workshop to Faizan Motor Workshop for Rs. 22,300/- vide bill no. 23 against vehicle no. DL-1CW-5462 and another bill no. nil dated 15.07.2017 for vehicle no. DL-1YE-1582 which is disputed by OP. There was inaccuracy in bills and change of class of vehicle from commercial to private without intimation to OP. It is breach of policy. The vehicle under reference was insured as a commercial vehicle but was converted as a private car by changing the registration number of vehicle before the accident. Therefore, there was no insurance coverage/ contract for the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CW-5462 on the date of accident. OP vide its intimation letter dated 30.11.2018 closed the claim as ‘no claim’. The claim is not maintainable. The complainant concealed the material facts. Complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost and OP be discharged of its liability.
2.3. Reply is accompanied with insurance policy, investigator report, copy of letters/ reminders sent to complainant and no claim intimation letter dated 30.11.2018.
3. Complainant filed rejoinder. The allegation of OP regarding change of class of the vehicle from commercial to private has been denied. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities as required by OP by submitting required documents by hand in its Delhi office. There is no concealment of facts by the complainant at any point of time nor any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed as true and correct. Rest of the allegations of reply are denied.
4. Complainant filed his affidavit of evidence; it is on the pattern of complaint and he relies upon the document filed with the complaint.
OP also filed affidavit of evidence under the signature of Sh. Raghunath Pawar, Administrative Officer (Legal) of OP company at New Delhi, which is also on the pattern of reply and the documents filed with the reply.
5. Complainant filed written argument which is on the facts and features of the complaint. Complainant has cited case law titled Manjeet Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. (2018) 2 SCC 108 but ratio of this case does not apply in the present case.
OP also filed written argument and has cited case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC-644, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Soni Chariyan, reported in II (1999) CPJ 13 (SC) and has also cited the case of Nitin Khandelwal and Narender Singh having reference to section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act. In these cases it was held that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, and all those expression appearing in the policy have to be construed as it is and something cannot be added, substracted or substituted. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.
6. Mr. Hardev Kashyap, Advocate for complainant and Sh. Shankar Sinha, Advocate for OP made oral submissions.
7.1. [Findings]- The rival contentions are considered, in light of evidence of parties (documentary and oral). It does not require to reproduce their submissions as the same are being considered for adjudicating the issues.
7.2. OP on receipt of information about the accident of the said vehicle dated 05.07.2017 appointed surveyor for assessment of loss. The surveyor submitted his report dated 08.07.2017 after physical inspection of the said vehicle, he wrote letter dated 18.07.2017 to the complainant asking to clarify as the vehicle registered under commercial class, was allotted registration no. DL-1YE-1582 from the authority but at the time of accident i.e. 05.07.2017 it is found from concerned registration authority that the number of vehicle had been changed and new registration no. DL-1CW-5462 has been allotted against same engine and chasis number. The complainant failed to reply as to how the class of the vehicle has been changed from commercial to private without intimation to the insurer; and at the time of accident i.e. 05.07.2017, there was no insurance cover against vehicle no. DL-1CW-5462. Insurance covers the same engine and chasis number of the vehicle number DL-1YE-1582 and the policy under reference issued on 07.02.2017 for the period of 07.02.2017 to 06.02.2018 with the registration certificate of the vehicle having registration no. DL-1YE-1582.
7.3. It was also confirmed by OP through its investigator for verification of the offending vehicle as mentioned in the claim form by the complainant and it was found from the concerned authority, State Transport Department, Mall Road that said vehicle bearing no. DL-1YE-1582 changed its class of vehicle and got newly registration no. DL-1CW-5462 by the process of conversion on 03.05.2017. Mr. Kanwar Singh, Insurance Investigator has also submitted his report dated 22.03.2018 having the details of the vehicles after verification from the office of registration authority.
7.4. There are some undisputed facts. OP is insurer and the complainant is insured. As per the policy vehicle no. DL-1YE-1582 was insured with OP against payment of premium and policy was issued to complainant. It is also not disputed that accident took place of vehicle bearing registration (private) no. DL-1CW-5462 for which formal FIR was registered on 05.07.2017. It is also undisputed that the complainant had not informed OP of change of users of vehicle as well as of it is new registration number.
7.5. The other disputed facts are of whether or not there is violation of terms and conditions of policy; or submission of required documents by the complainant to OP; or concealment of facts, if any by the complainant. They are going to be dealt in next paragraphs.
7.6. By taking into account of all record and materials, the following conclusions are arrived:-
(i) In general insurance policy contract, there are three essential component namely - (a) the Insurer (b) the Insured and (c) the Object being insured (subject matter of insurance). All these are governed by terms and conditions of insurance contract for covering the perils.
(ii) The complainant got insured 4 wheeler vehicle car with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. /OP having registration no. DL-1YE-1582 [engine No. 811954 and chassis no. 544592, vide Insurance Policy No. 361801/31/16/6300011818, for the period 07.02.2017 to 06.02.2018 for total IDV of Rs. 3,57,000/-] with total premium of Rs. 18,947/- in his name.
Therefore complainant is the Insured, OP is Insurer and Car/vehicle (with its registration number) no. DL-1YE-1582, is the Object insured (subject matter of insurance) against risks covered.
(iii) The vehicle no. DL-1CW-5462 met with the accident on 05.07.2017, which happens to be during validity of insurance policy [but it was issued for vehicle no. DL-1YE-1582].
(iv) However, during the validity of insurance policy and also prior to accident took place, the complainant applied and obtained private number DL-1CW-5462 in place of previous number [DL-1YE-1582]. Thus, registration number of subject matter was changed and it was to be got incorporated in the insurance document to update the subject matter to be covered against risks insured. The complainant had not requested in writing to OP to this effect nor he got endorsed new registration number (DL-1CW-5462) in the policy in place of previous number [DL-1YE-1582].
The complaint has written manually registration no. DL-1CW-5462 on the photocopy of policy in place of registration no. DL-1YE-1582, however, it would not become policy for new registration number. The endorsement of new number could be by OP on request of complainant but no such request was made by the complainant.
After change of registration number, the private registration number of vehicle was to be incorporated in the contract of insurance policy. On the date of incident of accident, vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1YE-1582 was not subject matter of policy as it ceased to exist after change of number and the Car having new registration no. DL-1CW-5462 was also not subject matter of the policy contract as it was not got included as subject matter of policy.
(v) Since complainant’s perception that because chassis number and engine number are same for both the registration number of the vehicle and for accident claim purposes it could be considered, however, such perception are misplaced, since registration number is an identity of vehicle, registration number is displayed on body of the vehicle to make it visible to all and for legal, contractual and all other practical purposes the registration number is used, even to locate and trace the vehicle by police & other competent authorities. The chassis number and engine numbers remains inside the body of vehicle as well as before or after ex-show room. The new registration number of the vehicle is not in the insurance policy contract to cover the risks.
(vi) It is also within the terms and conditions of policy contract to inform the Insurer for changes took place, the complainant cannot derive any benefit that premium paid for insurance of commercial vehicle is higher than premium for private vehicle, for the afore-mentioned reasons.
(vii) The complainant had informed the police by filing FIR after incident by mentioning new private registration number, knowing well that previous number ceases to exist, FIR was registered on 5.7.2017.
8. In view of above conclusions, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. There is non-compliance of terms and conditions of policy by complainant. The complainant could not prove his case against OP, the complaint is dismissed. No order to cost.
9. Announced on this 21st August, 2023. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [InderJeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
