DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.3 of 2018
Date of institution: 01.01.2018
Date of Decision:25.04.2022
Ravi Kumar aged about 33 years son of Krishan Lal, resident of House No.535, Street No.9, Prem Nagar, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana
….Complainant
Versus
- National Insurance Company Limited, DO—1, Link Road, Near Atam Park, Regional Office, Ludhiana through authorized signatory
- National Insurance Company Limited, DO 111, Kochhar Market, Model Gram, Ludhiana, through authorized signatory
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. R.K Chand, Advocate, for OPs
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is the registered owner of Toyota Innova car model 2005, bearing registration No.PB10BS0606, which is being used for domestic and private use by the complainant. The complainant got insured its car for the period from 22.12.2016 to 21.12.2017 (midnight) from OP No.2 against the insured declared value of Rs.2,30,000/- as package policy and the complainant paid the premium accordingly. OP issued the policy bearing No.404000/31/16/6100004466. The said vehicle was hypothecated in the name of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited. During the tenure of the said policy, the complainant along with his friend Dr. Rajiv Sharma and its Family returning back to Ludhiana from Chitpuri on 10.06.2017 in the evening and during journey, complainant himself drive the car but due blinking of eyes due to non sleeping, the said vehicle was entrusted to drive by Barjesh Kaushal and the said vehicle met with an accident on 11.6.2017 at about 3 Am while escaping animal and car hit with Tractor Trolly and the person Barjesh Kaushil had died in the said accident. In the said accident, the vehicle in question damaged badly and DDR No.17 dated 11.6.2017 was registered in the Police Station, Sadar Phagwara. It is further stated that the claim was lodged with the OP against the loss of vehicle, which was registered on 27.6.2017 and thereafter claim form and estimate of loss of vehicle (which is more than IDV of the car) was also submitted to the surveyor as appointed by the OP but thereafter the complainant is not in a knowledge of that to which extent loss was assessed by the surveyor. The OP repudiate the claim of the complainant vide letter dated01.11.2017, stating therein that Mr. Prem Singh has given his investigation report dated 27.10.2017 that vehicle in question was plying for hire and reward and Dr Rajiv Sharma who had hired the vehicle as taxi has also confirmed vide his letter dated 01.10.2017, the use of private vehicle for any other Hire or Reward constitutes violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and also Limitation as to Use of the motor policy asked the complainant to sent them its commits as to why subject claim be entertained in the view of gross violation observed as per the above mentioned point. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- Repudiation letter dated 14.11.2017 may kindly be set aside and claim of the complainant against the IDV of Rs.2,30,000/- of the car may kindly be allowed along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss till payment
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Any other relief as per facts or circumstances of the case be also allowed if Hon’ble Forum thinks so necessary for the proper disposal of the complaint
2. In reply, the O.P. have challenging the veracity of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction and maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties regarding accidental loss to his vehicle and immediately on receipt of the claim it was duly registered, entertained and processed. M/s Eminent Solvserve Insurance, Surveyor and loss assessor Private Limited was deposited for survey and assessment of loss. M/s Eminent Solvserve Insurance through its representative inspected the vehicle, took photographs, collected documents and submitted their motor survey report dated 10.08.2017 along with documents and they assessed the total loss of Rs.1,48,000/- subject to terms and condition of insurance policy. Mr. Prem Singh investigator was deputed to conduct investigation. Mr. Prem Singh conducted investigation, collected relevant papers and he obtain statements of witnesses and he submitted his investigation report dated 27.10.2017 along with documents and statements of witnesses. After the receipt of the investigation report along with documents, the claim of the complainant was duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy and after applying the mind by the official of the company the claim of the complainant was found not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. The OP sent a pre repudiation letter dated 1.11.2017 and clearly informed to the complainant that he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The Ops vide letter dated 1.11.2017 requested to the complainant to comments as to why his subject should be entertained in the view of gross violation mention in the letter and requested him to comment within 15 days on receipt of said letter failing which it will be presumed that complainant has nothing to offer in the subject claim and claim will be repudiated without further notice. The complainant has replied to the said letter through his counsel Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate. After receipt of the said reply, the claim of the complainant was again duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy and after applying the mind by the official of the company, the claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 14.11.2017. It is admitted that Innova Car bearing registration No.PB-10-BS-0606 was insured with the Ops but said policy was issued along with terms and conditions of the policy and all the terms and conditions of the policy are binding between the parties. It is also stated that Dr. Rajeev Sharma and his family returning back to Ludhiana from Chintpurni and Dr. Rajeev Sharma was not friend of the complainant infact the said Rajeev Sharma had hired the vehicle as taxi and he has given in writing. The complainant has concealed the said fact from the Ops. It is also admitted that claim was lodged with the OP and surveyor was appointed by the Ops. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant have been denied by the Ops and prayed for ismissal of the complaint.
3 The complainant has tendered various documents in the shape of evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that claim was declined on the basis of statement as given by Dr. Rajiv Sharma on 21.10.2017 which is after the gap period of 5 months of the accident whereas said Rajiv Sharma has nowhere stated such statement before the police authority as given after the accident. Moreover, no consideration for hiring the of car of the complainant was paid by Dr. Rakesh Sharma nor demanded or claimed as entire expenses including petrol etc were paid by the complainant from its own pocket due to himself accompanying with Dr. Rakesh Sharma and nothing was paid by said Rakesh Sharma so without proof of consideration allegation for using the car for taxi purpose is not valid. Dr. Rajiv Sharma has never stated anything regarding hiring of vehicle of the complainant being taxi in his statement dated 11.6.2017. Even, Dr. Rajiv Sharma has not given any affidavit. It is important to mention here that registration number of the vehicle in question is PB-10-BS-0606 i.e. not a taxi registration number, whereas, in the state of Punjab, registration number allotted to the vehicle by the registering authority is PB-01.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have considered the evidence on record. The facts pertaining to the insurance of the vehicle and its accident which resulted in total loss to the vehicle are not in dispute. We note that the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on the grounds that the vehicle was being used on hire and reward purposes which was not permitted under the insurance policy based on the FIR recorded by the Police on the statement of Dr. Rajeev Sharma as well as the report of the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company to inquire into the accident. We agree with the contention of the Counsel for complainant that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and in the instant case even the person (Dr.Rajeev Sharma) on whose complaint he Police recorded the FIR has categorically denied.
7. In this context, it also needs to be noted that it is not in dispute that Dr. Rajeev Sharma was injured in the accident and admitted in the hospital. So far as the report of the Investigator is concerned, we note that it is based on hearsay evidence and even though the surveyor has filed his affidavit, no affidavit of the person who stated that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purposes has been filed in evidence.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant has taken a comprehensive insurance policy nor is it in dispute that the accident took place during the subsistence of the policy. The policy was, therefore, valid on the date of the accident.
9. The learned counsel for the Ops has placed on record the motor surveyor report dated 02.11.2017, as Ex.R4, which clearly shows that the surveyor has assessed the loss of the vehicle of Rs.1,48,000/-. In this document, the surveyor has nowhere mentioned that the vehicle in question was being used for the purpose on the basis of which the opposite parties have repudiated his genuine claim of the complainant.
10. So, after considering all the facts, documents on file and the law point, present complaint is allowed partly against opposite parties and directed to pay Rs.1,48,000/- as assessed by the surveyor, which is admitted by the Ops in their reply. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Ops are also directed to comply with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
April 25, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
President
(Ranvir Kaur)
Member
