Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/7/2019

Anaj Mandi - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin bansal

21 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.7 of 2019.

                                        Date of instt.:02.1.2019. 

                                        Date of Decision:21.1.2020.

                                                               

M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Dal, having its office at Shop No.61, New Grain Market, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through its President and authorized signatory Som Parkash s/o Shri Phaggu Ram.

 

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                 Versus

 

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Office at Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Manager.
2. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.156, Industrial Area, Sector-2, Kurukshetra-136118.

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Anand Garg, Advocate for the complainant.             

Shri A.L. Madan, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

Shri Ved Pal Dattana, Advocate for the opposite Party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Dal against National Insurance Company Ltd., the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a society registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. The complainant society vide its duly passed resolution dated 15.11.2018 had authorized its President Shri Som Parkash to file and maintain the present complaint in all respects. Hence, the present complaint is being filed by the complainant through the President and Authorized signatory Shri Som Parkash. That the society was formed by its members for the single purpose of social work and for helping needy peoples of the society. That as per its objective of helping ill people in emergencies, the complainant arranged/purchased an ambulance bearing Registration No.HR65A-7383. Earlier, this ambulance was owned by one society named M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, which is also a similar society like the complainant with similar objective. The registration authorities transferred the registration of said vehicle in the name of the complainant in June 2017. That the said ambulance was insured with the OP No.1. The transfer of ownership in the name of complainant was duly informed to the OP No.1 and handed its registration certificate to the OP No.1. The OP No.2 is a broker through whom the insurance of said vehicle was got renewed on 14.7.2018 w.e.f. 20.7.2017 to 19.7.2018 by paying a premium of Rs.8983/-. That the said vehicle was met with an accident in January 2018, when a cow suddenly came in front of it and the driver in order to save the holy cow, tried to divert the vehicle. However, in doing so, the vehicle got hit in the divider of highway which caused a lot of damage to the front side of said vehicle. That the vehicle was brought to Amar Automobiles, Opp. DAV College, Ambala Road, Pehowa. The OP No.1 was duly informed, who sent its surveyor to survey the damaged vehicle, who duly surveyed the vehicle and necessary replacement and repairs in the vehicle was done by Amar Automobiles, who raised the bill of Rs.45,651/-, which was paid by the complainant. That the complainant submitted the claim alongwith the requisite documents with the OP No.1 and in reply to that, received a letter dated 05.7.2018 from the insurer asking for previous insurance policy, which was duly provided by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant received one more letter dated 13.7.2018 from the insurance company stating that the complainant was not entitled to claim as NO CLAIM BONUS (NCB) in the latest insurance policy. The complainant met with the official of OP No.1, who asked him to refund the amount of No Claim Bonus to the OP No.1, accordingly, the complainant refunded the amount of Rs.619/- i.e. Rs.525/- as No Claim Bonus plus Rs.94/- as GST to the OP No.1, which was duly received by the OP No.1 and said amount is still in possession of the OP No.1, but despite that, the OP No.1 failed to pass the claim of the complainant. This act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is stated that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true & material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The true & material facts are that the vehicle bearing No.HR-65A-7383 was initially registered in the name of M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, Pehowa and the insurance policy was obtained by the said registered owner of vehicle from the OP. Later on, the said vehicle was transferred by the said registered owner and consequently, the registration certificate of the vehicle was also transferred in the name of M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Dal Pehowa. The complainant while renewing the insurance of said vehicle did not produce the registration certificate before the representative of the OP No.1, concealed the material fact of transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question owned by M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, a different society by misrepresentation obtained No Claim Bonus (NCB) on the insurance policy renewed from 20.7.2017 to 19.7.2018 from the OP No.1, whereas, a benefit of NCB is available to the same owner and with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the benefit of NCB is not admissible to the subsequent transferee/owner of the vehicle, so, as per the settled law the claim of the complainant is not payable and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The surveyor vide his report dated 04.7.2018 assessed the net payable loss of Rs.27,646/- for carrying out the repairs and replacement of the damaged parts of the said vehicle after taking into consideration the depreciate value of the parts replaced i.e. 50% on plastic parts and 10% on metal parts, labour charges involved, deducting policy excess clause of Rs.2000/- and salvage value as per terms & conditions of the policy. As per settled law, the reports of the Authorized Licensed Surveyors should be given due importance and one should have sufficient ground not to agree with the assessment made by them. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same with heavy costs.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the policy from the OP No.1 through OP No.2. However, whether the insurance claim is payable or not is the subject matter of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy and is to be decided between the complainant and OP No.1. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.2.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 alongwith documents Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-8. The learned counsel for OP No.2 did not tender any evidence vide recorded his separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He further argued that the complainant is a society registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. As per its objective of helping ill people in emergencies, the complainant arranged/purchased an ambulance bearing Registration No.HR65A-7383. Earlier, this ambulance was owned by one society named M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, which is also a similar society like the complainant with similar objective. The registration authorities transferred the registration of said vehicle in the name of the complainant in June 2017. The said ambulance was insured with the OP No.1. The transfer of ownership in the name of complainant was duly informed to the OP No.1 and handed its registration certificate to the OP No.1. The OP No.2 is a broker through whom the insurance of said vehicle was got renewed on 14.7.2018 w.e.f. 20.7.2017 to 19.7.2018 by paying a premium of Rs.8983/-. He further argued that the said vehicle was met with an accident in January 2018 and caused a lot of damage to the front side of said vehicle. The OP No.1 was duly informed, who sent its surveyor to survey the damaged vehicle, who duly surveyed the vehicle and necessary replacement and repairs in the vehicle was done by Amar Automobiles, who raised the bill of Rs.45,651/-, which was paid by the complainant. The complainant submitted the claim alongwith the requisite documents with the OP No.1, but received letter dated 13.7.2018 from the insurance company stating that the complainant was not entitled to claim as NO CLAIM BONUS (NCB) in the latest insurance policy. The complainant met with the official of OP No.1, who asked him to refund the amount of No Claim Bonus to the OP No.1, accordingly, the complainant refunded the amount of Rs.619/- i.e. Rs.525/- as No Claim Bonus plus Rs.94/- as GST to the OP No.1, which was duly received by the OP No.1 and said amount is still in possession of the OP No.1, but despite that, the OP No.1 failed to pass the claim of the complainant. In support to his contention, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another, Civil Appeal No.1374 of 2008, dod 17.7.2012 (SC) and Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, Civil Appeal No.6237 of 1990 dodo 05.11.1993 (SC).

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in respective written statement. He argued that the vehicle bearing No.HR-65A-7383 was initially registered in the name of M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, Pehowa and the insurance policy was obtained by the said registered owner of vehicle from the OP. Later on, the said vehicle was transferred by the said registered owner and consequently, the registration certificate of the vehicle was also transferred in the name of M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Dal Pehowa. The complainant while renewing the insurance of said vehicle did not produce the registration certificate before the representative of the OP No.1, concealed the material fact of transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question owned by M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, a different society by misrepresentation obtained No Claim Bonus (NCB) on the insurance policy renewed from 20.7.2017 to 19.7.2018 from the OP No.1, whereas, a benefit of NCB is available to the same owner and with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the benefit of NCB is not admissible to the subsequent transferee/owner of the vehicle. The surveyor vide his report dated 04.7.2018 assessed the net payable loss of Rs.27,646/- for carrying out the repairs and replacement of the damaged parts of the said vehicle after taking into consideration the depreciate value of the parts replaced i.e. 50% on plastic parts and 10% on metal parts, labour charges involved, deducting policy excess clause of Rs.2000/- and salvage value as per terms & conditions of the policy. As per the settled law the claim of the complainant is not payable and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. In support to his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar, First Appeal No.831 of 2012, dodo 21.5.2014 (State Commission).

8.             There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was earlier owned by one society named M/s Anaj Mandi Seva Samiti, and thereafter transferred the same in the name of the complainant in the year 2017 vide document Ex.C-2/Ex.C-11. The said vehicle was insured with the OP No.2 and got renewed on 14.7.2018 for the period from 20.7.2017 to 19.7.2018 by paying a premium of Rs.8983/- vide Certificate Cum Policy Schedule Ex.C-6. There is no dispute that the said vehicle was met with an accident and the complainant submitted his claim with the OP No.2, who refused to pay the NCB/claim vide letter dated 13.7.2018 with the pleadings that benefit of NCB is available to the same owner and with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the benefit of NCB is not admissible to the subsequent transferee/owner of the vehicle i.e. the complainant. From the above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties with regard to NCB amount. In this regard, the complainant has alleged that he met with the official of OP No.1, who asked him to refund the amount of No Claim Bonus to the OP No.1, accordingly, he refunded the amount of Rs.619/- i.e. Rs.525/- as No Claim Bonus plus Rs.94/- as GST to the OP No.1, which was duly received by the OP No.1. In this regard, the complainant produced document Ex.C-7, vide which the complainant paid the amount of Rs.525/- to the OP No.1. However, once the OP No.1 received the NCB amount from the complainant, then it is the duty of the OP No.1 to release the claim of the complainant and by not doing so, the OP No.1 is deficient. Moreover, at the time of purchasing of policy by the complainant, it is the duty of OP No.1 to verify the previous policy regarding the NCB. After getting the report of previous NCB, the OP No.1 cannot refuse to pay the claim amount to the complainant, so, the stand taken by the OP is not acceptable. Hence, the OP No.1 is deficient in providing the services to the complainant. 

9.             Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification. From the perusal of Surveyor report Ex.R-23, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the liability to the tune of Rs.27,646/-.

                In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal, II (2009) CPJ, 45 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the surveyor’s report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to contrary on record.

                Since in the present case, the report of the surveyor is well explained and detailed one, therefore, we are of the view that the OP No.1 is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss as assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.27,646/- and not Rs.45,651/- ‘as claimed by the complainant. The OP No.1 is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigations expenses. Since there are no specific allegations against the OP No.2 and even it has no role to play in the dispute in question, therefore, complaint qua OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint against the OP No.2 and allow the same against the OP No.1 and direct the OP No.1 in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.27,646/- alongwith interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 02.1.2019 i.e. the date of filing the present complaint, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, would be initiated against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:21.1.2020.                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.