Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/29

Yadwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                   29 of 2019

Date of Institution:    28.01.2019

Date of Decision :     03.02.2020

 

Yadwinder Singh aged about 48 years son of Avtar Singh r/o Zaildar Street, Near Gangsar Gurudwara, Rasal Patti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                                                      ...Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager Fauji Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                                         .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to pay lawful Insurance claim and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in

cc no. - 29 of 2019

service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

2                                 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he was the registered owner of Isuzu 2016 V Cross car bearing no.PUB-0001 and it was insured with Ops vide Insurance Policy issued by OPs for the period from 10.07.2017 to 9.07.2018 for sum assured of Rs.9,91,200/-. Unfortunately, during the subsistence of policy in question, car of complainant met with an accident on 8.01.2018 and in said accident it was badly damaged. Intimation regarding said accident was given to OPs and they appointed Surveyor to assess the loss caused to his vehicle. Said Surveyor appointed by OPs assessed the loss and told complainant that his vehicle was entirely damaged and is non repairable  and he is entitled for total loss of vehicle. Thereafter, as per demand of OPs, complainant submitted all documents required for processing the claim to them without any delay and also supplied them self declaration, affidavit, verification of ownership record. OPs assured to settle the claim within short period but they did not pay a single penny as insurance claim for loss caused to complainant on account of loss of his vehicle on false grounds of registration number, registration certificate and about nature of plying the vehicle by complainant. Even legal notice dated 3.12.2018 served by complainant to Ops through counsel also served no purpose. He made several requests to Ops to make payment of his genuine insurance claim, but all in vain. All this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the

cc no. - 29 of 2019

OPs to pay  Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/- besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.01.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the OP-2 filed written statement through counsel wherein he has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and took preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed as alleged accident occurred in Uttar Pradesh and Policy of car is issued from Chandigarh. Answering OP has no concern with the claim of the car as complainant lodged the claim with OP-1 at Chandigarh and claim file is lying at Chandigarh in the office of OP-1 and all the correspondence if any done by the complainant that is done with OP-1 and claim is to be settled or rejected by OP-1, but OP-2 has no concern with it. It is further averred that maximum liability is limited up to 8,71,500/-, but it is also denied. complainant has no insurable interest as on the day of alleged accident, said vehicle was not registered. Transport Authorities cancelled the registration number of said vehicle on 5.07.2017 and asked complainant to get issued the fresh registration number, but complainant did not get

cc no. - 29 of 2019

the fresh registration number of car. It is further averred that complainant approached Civil Court, Bathinda and filed suit titled as Yadwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others regarding cancellation of registration of his vehicle, but Hon’ble Court at Bathinda dismissed the suit of complainant vide order dated 5.05.2018. It is further averred that complainant has obtained the present policy by concealing the material facts that car was not having registration number at the time of insurance and moreover, as  per Transport Authorities, Bathinda, car in question was being used as commercial vehicle, but same was got insured by complainant from OPs as private vehicle and there is a lot of difference for premium of commercial vehicles and private vehicles as premium for commercial vehicle is higher than private one and for commercial vehicle, route permit and fitness are required, which were not furnished by complainant. Complainant was using the said vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question . Surveyor appointed by Ops conducted the survey and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,71,500/- as desired by complainant but he is not entitled for this amount or for more even on non standard basis. It is further averred that loss cannot be settled as total loss because registration of the vehicle is required to be transferred in the name of Insurance Company, but as per record of Transport Authorities, registration of vehicle in question is not in the name of complainant and therefore,  complainant is not in position to transfer the ownership in the name of Insurance Company and if loss is settled with salvage of car, then in that eventuality, cancellation of

cc no. - 29 of 2019

registration is must, but in that case also, complainant cannot cancel the registration of vehicle. However, on merits also, Ld Counsel for OP-2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken by him in preliminary objections. Ld counsel for OP-2 further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A and documents Ex C-1 to C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Tirath Ram Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-14 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                              From the careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record, from the pleadings of complainant and rival contentions of OPs, it is observed that case of the complainant is that his insured car met with an accident and due intimation regarding same was

cc no. - 29 of 2019

given by him to Police as well as OPs. Complainant completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents to them but despite several requests, OPs have illegally and unlawfully not cleared his claim on false pretexts of not having registration number, registration certificate and about nature of plying the vehicle by the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. On the other hand plea taken by Ops is that at the time of said accident, vehicle of the complainant was not having registration number. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the present complaint as accident occurred in Uttar Pradesh and Policy of car is issued from Chandigarh. Complainant lodged claim with OP-1 and claim file is with OP-1 and moreover, claim is to be settled or rejected by OP-1 and OP-2 has no concern with it. Maximum liability is limited up to 8,71,500/-, but it is also denied as on the day of alleged accident, said vehicle was not registered. Transport Authorities cancelled the registration number of said vehicle on 5.07.2017 and asked him to get issued the fresh registration number, but complainant did not get the fresh registration number of car. Complainant also filed suit titled as Yadwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others regarding cancellation of registration of his vehicle, but Hon’ble Court at Bathinda dismissed the same vide order dated 5.05.2018. Car in question was being used as commercial vehicle, but same was got insured by complainant from OPs as private vehicle. Premium of commercial vehicles is higher than private one and for commercial vehicle, route permit and fitness are

cc no. - 29 of 2019

required, which were not furnished by complainant. Vehicle was being used in violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question. Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,71,500/- but he is not entitled for it. Loss cannot be settled as total loss because registration of the vehicle is required to be transferred in the name of Insurance Company, but as per record of Transport Authorities, registration is not in the name of complainant and he is not in position to transfer the ownership in the name of Company and if loss is settled with salvage of car, then in that case, cancellation of registration is must, but in that case also, complainant cannot cancel the registration of vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

9                                             We have thoroughly gone through the evidence on file and arguments addressed by the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that vehicle of the complainant was insured with OPs and during the subsistence of the insurance period, the same met with an accident and in that  accident vehicle was totally damaged and Surveyor appointed by the OPs declared the vehicle as total loss. The only plea taken by the Ops for non payment of insurance claim of the complainant is that as per OPs, at the time of accident and even at the time of issuance of insurance policy, the vehicle was not registered and its registration number was already cancelled by the DTO, Bathinda on 5.07.2017. As the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident, it is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the complainant

cc no. - 29 of 2019

has no insurable interest for the vehicle, so, nothing is payable as the insurance claim. On the other hand, ld counsel for complainant argued that it is wrong that at the time of accident or at the time of issuance of policy, vehicle was not registered with Transport Department. The vehicle was duly registered with District Transport Office, Bathinda and registration number PUB-0001was issued to the vehicle in question. The DTO, Bathinda vide its order dated 5.07.2017 only cancelled the registration number of the vehicle and not cancelled the registration of the vehicle. By mere order of cancellation of registration number, it cannot be considered that registration of vehicle is cancelled. Moreover, order dated 5.07.2017 of DTO, Bathinda with regard to cancellation of registration number is not finalized till date. Against the order dated 5.07.2017 of DTO, Bathinda, complainant has filed a Civil Suit in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bathinda on 11.07.2017 titled as Yadwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, which was dismissed by the court of Civil Judge vide order dated 5.05.2018. The complainant has challenged the order of the ld Civil Judge (Jr Division), Bathinda in appeal  before the District Judge, Bathinda. As such, the order of DTO, Bathinda regarding cancellation of registration number is never finalized and it is still pending. At the time of issuance of insurance policy and accident, Civil Suit was pending before Civil Judge, Jr Division, Bathinda, which was decided on 5.05.2018 and against the order of Civil Judge (Jr Division), Bathinda, appeal is still pending. As such, it cannot be said that registration number of the vehicle in question is cancelled as

cc no. - 29 of 2019

matter regarding cancellation of registration number is till sub judice. So, Insurance Company cannot reject the claim of the complainant on the ground of cancellation of the registration number. This act of Insurance Company amounts to  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

10                                    From the above discussion, it is our considered opinion that registration of the vehicle of the complainant is never cancelled by the DTO, Bathinda. As per order dated 5.07.2017, District Transport Office, Bathinda cancelled the registration of the vehicle and not cancelled the registration number of vehicle and instructed the complainant to get afresh registration number for his vehicle instead of registration number PUB-0001. Moreover, said order dated 5.07.2017 of DTO, Bathinda has not been finalized as the complainant filed appeal against the order of the DTO, Bathinda in the court. At the time of issuance of policy and at the time of accident, civil suit was pending in the court of Bathinda and matter was still sub judiced. So, it cannot be said that registration number was cancelled at the time of accident as matter is still pending. As such, Ops have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on false grounds. Hence, present complaint is hereby allowed and OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.8,71,500/-to complainant on net of salvage basis as assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the Ops vide his Survey Report Ex OP-6 subject to execution of all necessary documents in favour of OPs by complainant within 30 days of execution of documents from complainant in their

cc no. - 29 of 2019

favour. Complainant is directed to furnish and execute all requisite and necessary documents in favour of OPs for processing the claim. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made by Ops within prescribed period failing which complainant shall be further entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this order till final realization and shall also be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 03.02.2020

 

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

             Member                         President