District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 71/2021.

 Date of Institution:04.02.2021.

Date of Order: 03.02.2023.

Lali Devi W/o late Shri Bhoorelal present R/o House No. 956 A, Bhoor Colony, Near Rama Sweets, Sector-29, Faridabad. Permanent  R/o village Raipur Gadhiya, Tehsil Porsa, Distt. Morena (M.P).

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 2 : 5C/1-2, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh. Sagar Bhatia,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Neeraj Gupta, counsel for opposite party

ORDER:  

The facts in brief of the complaint are that   the complainant purchased a car bearing registration NO. HR-38-Z/3683, Chassis No. MA3EJKD1SooB95039, engine and the said vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party  bearing insurance policy No. 39050031181342950416 valid from 31.01.2019 to 30.012020.  The value of the aforesaid car for the purpose of insurance was assessed to Rs.5,69,373/- under the aforesaid insurance policy by the opposite  party.  This was not dismay to mention that the husband of the complainant Shri Bhoorelal (now deceased) was earning his livelihood solely by self driving aforesaid car No. HR-38-Z/3683 which was the only self employment mean of deceased.  The husband of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.26,739/- including Rs.275/- Compulsory PA Cover (Owner – Driver) under the said policy.   Initially the aforesaid car was under Higher Purchase Agreement with Mahindra Finance Ltd. But the complainant had paid all the installments of the same and obtained NOC from them.  On 09.03.2019 at 1:30 the husband of the complainant was returning to his home village after attending family function while self driving car NO.HR-38-Z/3683 in the meantime a bus bearing Regd. No. MP-07-P/1577 came in rash and negligent manner and hit the aforesaid car driven by Shri Bhurelal (Regd. Owner/insured and husband of the complainant) as a result thereof he sustained grievous injuries on his person as well as his car was also completely smashed.  He was immediately taken to Govt. Hospital Morena, from there he was referred to Gwalior and then due to his serious condition he was further referred for Delhi, but he was taken to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon.  But despite best possible treatment he died in Medanta Hospital on 11.03.2019 and the post mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital, Gurugram on 12.03.2019.  An FIR No. 0106 dated 11.03.2019 u/s 279/337/427 IPC, P.S.Ambah Distt. Morena was lodged regarding this accident.  The aforesaid car was taken to Tayal Motors, Faridabad (Authorized Dealer for Sale and Service of Maruti) and surveyor of opposite party also visited and inspected the said car there.  After inspection a repairing estimate of Rs.9,43,908/- was raised by the aforesaid dealer.  Since the said estimate was more than the insured value of the car under the insurance policy issued by opposite party.  Therefore, the said car was treated as total loss i.e. upto the value mentioned in insurance policy which was Rs.5,69,373/-.  The complainant received great shock, when she received a letter dt. 28.09.2019 issued by the opposite party in this letter the opposite party in arbitrary, unlawful manner and by acting against law drawn a self assumed conclusion that the husband of the complainant Shri Bhoorelal was not hold a valid driving license as on the date of accident and they had  repudiated the claim of the car, having claim No. 39050031181394609567.  The complainant submitted that Shri Bhoore Lal was holding valid and effective driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).  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)                Disburse Insurance value of the car Rs.5,69,373/- along with interest 18% p.a. from the date of accident till actual realization in favour of the complainant.

 b)                pay Rs.4,00,000/- 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 the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint.  The opposite party had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because at the time of accident the husband of the complainant was not having a valid driving license.  At the time of filing of claim  form the complainant not submitted any documents relating to the reimbursement of claim.  The complainant did not disclose any cause of action as against the answering opposite party. 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–  M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a)  Disburse Insurance value of the car Rs.5,69,373/- along with interest 18% p.a. from the date of accident till actual realization in favour of the complainant.  b) pay Rs.4,00,000/- 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,  Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Smt. Lali Devi,  Rc,.Ex.C-2 – Insurance policy, Ex.C-3 – NOC letter, Ex.C-4 – FIR, Ex.C-5 – Post Mortem Report, Ex.C-6 – Estimation details, Ex.C-7 – repudiation letter dated 28.09.2019.

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 Kavita Yadav, Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad.

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.5,69,373.00

Less Excess Clause                                                         :         Rs.     1,000.00

                                                                                      :         Rs.5,68,373.00

Deduction 25% on non standard basis  on total              :   (-)  Rs. 1,42,093.25

                   Total                                                           :         Rs. 4,26,280.00

9.                The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 4,26,280/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization., subject to verification of the Driving Licence submitted by the complainant as per Ex.C-8.   The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  03.02.2023                                             (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.