BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 69 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 11.4.2016.
Date of Decision: 22.02.2019.
Ved Parkash son of Shri Diwan Chand, resident of Subhash Chowk, near Rangeela Hanuman Mandir, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its branch office at Circular Road, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is owner of Mahindra Bolero EX AC BS4 Van registration No.HR61B-8438, Engine No.66742, Chassis No.80482, Model 2014. It is alleged that in the month of September, 2015 complainant went to the agent of the OP at Charkhi Dadri and asked him for insurance of his vehicle under commercial insurance policy, who told the expenses of insurance of vehicle under commercial insurance policy. It is further alleged that upon the assurance of the agent of the OP, the complainant insured his vehicle with the OP vide policy No. 14010331150100004203 dated 26.9.2015, valid from 26.9.2015 to 25.9.2016 and the complainant paid all the charges to the OP at the time of purchasing the policy under transport covering policy. It is further alleged that on 7.1.2016, vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and he had incurred a sum of Rs. 46,569/- for repairing the same. It is further alleged that the complainant has got repaired his vehicle from Lohchab Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and paid total amount of Rs.46,569/- for the repair on 14.1.2016. It is further alleged that on the day of accident, complainant informed the OP immediately and submitted all the documents for disbursement of claim amount of Rs.46,569/- i.e. cost of repair of the insured vehicle, but the OP did not disbursed the claim amount and kept put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged on 30.1.2016, the officials of the OP told the complainant that the vehicle of the complainant was insured under non-commercial policy and denied to pay the claim amount. It is further alleged that when the OP denied to pay the claim of the insured vehicle, then complainant again got insured his vehicle under the commercial policy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 31.1.2016 by paying Rs.19,610/- as premium, due to issuance of wrong policy by the OP company. It is further alleged that the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.39,610/- and Rs.46,569/- from OP company. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of the OP time and again for obtaining the claim of his vehicle, but the OP did not pay any heed to his request, due to which he has suffered mental harassment, humiliation, disappointment, fatigue and worries. It is further alleged that the complainant has got served a legal notice dated 11.2.2016 upon the OP through his counsel Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, Bhiwani, but to no effect. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP filed contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua locus-standi; cause of action; pre-mature; maintainability; estoppel and malafide. On merits, it is alleged that on receipt of summons, on inspection of the record, no such alleged claim in respect of the accident of the vehicle No.HR-61B-8438 insured with the OP vide policy No.14010331150100004203 covering the risk for the period from 26.9.2015 to 25.9.2016 was found. It is further alleged that no claim in respect of the alleged accident dated 7.1.2016 has been lodged with the OP and in the absence of any document, claim cannot be processed and settled. It is further alleged that the vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle, but was being used for commercial purpose, as admitted by the complainant in complaint itself and hence, the OP company has no liability to pay any compensation due to willful breach of the limitation to use as agreed in the contract of the policy and moreover the complainant does not come within the ambit of consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further alleged that at the time of purchase of the vehicle got the insurance policy from Mahindra Insurer Broker Limited, who are using portal of New India Assurance Company. It is further alleged that the complainant made all the payment to Mahindra Insurer Broker Limited against the policy in question covering the risk from 26.9.2015 to 25.9.2016 issued by the branch office Hisar for Private Car Package Policy, but the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and the registration of the vehicle is also for commercial purpose. It is further alleged that the averments are vague and incomplete, as no such place of accident and lodging any FIR with any Police Station has been mentioned in the complaint. It is further alleged that neither intimation of the alleged accident nor any claim was lodged till date by the complainant with the OP Company and in the absence of submissions of any documents no claim can be settled. It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased another policy of his own and the OP has no concern whatsoever with the so called policy purchased on 31.1.2016 from UIIC. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.18.940/- on account of premium and service tax were paid at the time of getting the vehicle insured from the OP Company through Mahindra Insurer Broker Ltd. It is further alleged that it seems that the complainant in order to seek the compensation fraudulently got insured the vehicle on 30.1.2016 showing the vehicle for commercial purpose. So in view of these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C5 in evidence and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record affidavit as annexure R1 & closed the evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There are some facts which are admitted by both the parties. It is admitted that fact that insured vehicle is registered as Taxi, bearing HR61B-8438. It is also admitted fact that the vehicle was insured for private use only. After perusal of the file, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove the factum of accident by placing on record some documentary evidence i.e. copy of FIR, photos of the accident. The complainant has also failed to mention the place of accident and mode of accident etc. The complainant has only placed on file the copy of a bill for the repair of insured vehicle, as Annexure C3. But the complainant miserably failed to prove the accident by placing on record some documentary evidence in support of his case. The OP has taken the plea that the vehicle is being used for commercial purpose, whereas the vehicle was insured for private use only. Now, the question arises where there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP of not? The sought answer is yes, because a bare perusal of RC of the vehicle, it is crystal clear that the insured vehicle is registered for commercial purpose i.e. Taxi. So, it was the duty of the OP Company to issue insurance policy for commercial purpose instead of private purpose. It is not understandable as to how the OP issued the Private use policy of a vehicle, which is registered as Taxi. Even if it is assumed that the OP has received the RC after issuance of the insurance policy, then as to why they did not cancel the insurance policy immediately after receipt of RC. Suppose if any accident had taken place with some other vehicle and cause grievous injuries to the passengers of other vehicle due to this gross negligence on the part of the OP, then who will be held responsible for this mistake of issuance of insurance policy for private purpose instead of issuance of insurance policy for commercial purpose. This Forum is of the considered view that the OP should be made liable and be punished with some punitive damages for this blunder on their part.
7. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the complainant is entitled to refund of premium amount only. Hence, in view of these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OP is directed to: -
i. To Pay Rs.18,940/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint tills its realization.
ii. To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
iii. To pay Rs.5500/- as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.
iv. To pay Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages, which is to be deposited under Head “0070-01-102-51-51 Fines & Forfeitures” department Food & Supply, DDO Code/Office Name 1705-Superintendent, District Consumer Forum, through challan.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 22.02.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 22.02.2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
