Haryana

Panchkula

CC/15/2016

HITESH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

08 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; PANCHKULA.

 

C.C.No. 15 of 2016.

Date of Instt. 20.01.2016.

Date of Order: 08.07.2016.

Hitesh Kumar s/o Prem Chand r/o 367-H, HMT, Pinjore.

 

..Complainant.

     Versus

1.The New India Assurance Co.Limited Regional Office- 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                             ..Opposite party No.1.

2.The  New India Assurance Co.Limited Branch Office- Kalka (353302) Near HBC & Kalka Mill.

          ..Opposite party No.2. 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

 Protection Act, 1986

 

Before:                  Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member

 

For the parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Kapil Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite parties.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle TATA Motor/Indica Car bearing registration No.HR-49-FT-0476 and got the said vehicle insured with Ops on 12.02.2015 having validity upto 11.05.2015. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority had issued Tourist Permit/ National Permit of the said vehicle vide authorization No.140/Taxi/2014 dated 04.12.2014 having validity from 12.08.2014 to 12.08.2015. No Objection Certificate/ Status of the said vehicle was issued by the office of SSP, UT, Chandigarh vide No.PW/MOB/196612 dated 06.04.2015 whereby it has been intimated that the vehicle is not wanted in theft case. As per report of NCRB issued by SSP, UT Chandigarh vide receipt No.35577 dated 01.04.2015 the vehicle has not been reported as stolen.  Certificate of fitness of vehicle valid upto 14.04.2015 again issued on 23.05.2015 having validity upto 18.05.2016 were also issued by competent authority. Said vehicle was damaged by an unknown person on 23.04.2015 when the complainant was out of station and the vehicle was parked in-front of his house. The complainant intimated the Ops about the mishap but in instead of honouring the claim they have repudiated the same vide memo No.CH/VS/2015-16 dated 20.07.2015 with the remarks that (i) you did not produce original fitness certificate for verification as advised and also did not have valid fitness certificate as on the date of loss and (ii) permit of the vehicle was not produced in original for verification. Prayer for issuance of direction to the Ops to pay Rs.30844/- as claim of the vehicle & Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment  on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by them has been made. In evidence the complainant has submitted affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C14.

3.                           On being served, the OPs have contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply wherein preliminary objections such as territorial jurisdiction and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that on 12.02.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 to get insure his Tata Indica Taxi car bearing registration No.HR-49-F(T)-0476 and showed his previous insurance which was already expired on 10.01.2015 so pre-inspection of his car was done by MACK Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the complainant requested the Op No.2 to insure his taxi for 3 months only as he wants to transfer his taxi car into private car and the Op No.2 has issued commercial vehicle package policy vide policy No.353302/31/14/01/00008791 which was valid from 12.02.2015 to 11.05.2015 subject to the terms and conditions of contract of insurance, limitations and coverage contained therein which were duly supplied & communicated to the complainant at the time of insurance. It is submitted that on 27.04.2015, the complainant gave intimation to the Ops that his car got damaged on 23.04.2015 and also filled up the claim form and the Op No.2 deputed Sh.Ravinder K. Goyal as surveyor & loss assessors for inspection & assessment of loss but the complainant has failed to provide the relevant papers/documents to the surveyor and the surveyor submitted his report dated 17.06.2015 with the Op. The surveyor has given the recommendation in his report that the fitness of the vehicle as on date of accident got expired and the person driving the car does not have valid driving license to drive transport vehicle and the permit of the vehicle was not submitted by the insured/complainant. It is submitted that the surveyor also assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10,800/-. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was processed by the Op No.1 who on 26.06.2015 sent a letter to the complainant to submit various documents within 10 days and thereafter, the Op No.1 also sent a reminder dated 08.07.2015 to fulfill the requirements within 10 days but to no avail. It is submitted that there was a gap of around one month between the fresh insurance and the previous insurance, so the pre-inspection report was called from the Op No.2. After getting the pre-inspection report from the Ops, the surveyor submitted his Adendum Motor Survey report in which he re-worked out of loss on pre-inspection basis. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has again sent a final reminder dated 20.07.2015 to the complainant to fulfill the requirements but the complainant has failed to do so and thereafter, the claim of the complainant was closed as ‘No Claim’ and informed the complainant vide letter dated 04.08.2015. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Other allegations of the complainant have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the claim has been made. The OPs have tendered in evidence affidavits and documents Annexure R-A and R-B, Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-11.

4                           We have heard the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Ops and have also perused the record carefully and minutely and have also considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Ops.

5.                               We have considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the record available on file.  The grouse of the complainant is that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim vide memo No.CH/VS/2015-16 dated 20.07.2015 with the remarks that (i) you did not produce original fitness certificate for verification as advised and also did not have valid fitness crficiate as on date of loss and (ii) permit of the vehicle was not produced in original for verification.  The fact regarding incident during the subsistence of the policy is not disputed.  Certificate of Fitness (Annexure C5) reveals that the vehicle was fit to drive upto 14.04.2015 and thereafter it was renewed having validity from 19.05.2015 to 18.05.2016 as is evident through Annexure C8. Perusal of Annexure C7 (Goods/Contract Carriage Permit) reveals that the permit was valid upto 12.08.2016. The complainant has come with the plea that on 23.04.2015 when his vehicle was parked in front of house then some unknown person damaged the vehicle. The complainant has further pleaded that  he has spent Rs.30844/- qua repair of the vehicle and also placed on file Annexure C12, C13 and C14 (bills) in support of his contention. The question which this Forum is to decide whether the Ops can repudiate the claim in toto in case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is not disputed that on the day of incident the complainant was not having fitness certificate but the Ops have not placed on the record any evidence/document to show that the vehicle was being plied on the road at the time of accident without having any permit or fitness certificate. Moreover, the Ops have also not placed on record anything to show that the vehicle was not fit to drive on the road. In para Nos.9 & 10 of the complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned that the vehicle was damaged by some unknown person when it was parked in front of his house. The Ops have not specifically denied this fact and even they also did not bother to enquire whether the vehicle was actually parked in front of the house of the complainant on the day of accident or it was being plied on the road on the day of accident. Though the surveyor had appointed by the Ops who enquired the matter in question from every corner and also submitted his report (Annexure R6) but this very report does not show that the accident had happened when the vehicle was being plied despite the fact that the same was not roadworthy. The Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy by the complainant but the Ops have not even bothered to place on file the terms and conditions of the insurance. In the present case the terms and conditions are not germane therefore, the repudiation of the claim in toto is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance co.Ltd. Vs. Malti bhikhabhai Bhoya 2013 (3) CLT 178 (NC)  has held that if there has been any breach of warranty or condition of policy including limitation as to use, insured is entitled  to get 75 % of the admissible claim on non-standard basis- The insurance company is not entitled to repudiate the claim in toto. Hence, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled New India Assurance co.Ltd. Vs. Malti bhikhabhai Bhoya (supra), we are of the opinion that opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with a direction to the Ops :

1. To pay 75 % of the amount (Total amount Rs.30844/-) spent by the complainant qua repairing of the vehicle.
2. To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

(iv)    To make the payment of Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

This order shall be complied with by the ops within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy, thereafter, the Ops shall pay the amount at serial No.1 alongwith the interest @ 9 % per annum till realization besides complying with the directions at serial No.(ii) &  (iii) above. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

08.07.2016   S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL                      MEMBER               MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                  

                                            

                                                          DHARAM PAL                                                                                          PRESIDENT