BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 169 of 2012
Date of Institution : 27.8.2012
Date of Decision : 25.5.2016
Ram Singh son of Shri Tahal Singh, r/o H.No.131, VPO Sikanderpur, tehsil and District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 45012, Ist Floor, Bank Bazar, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA……………….. ………PRESIDENT.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA……………. …MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he is registered owner of Verna car bearing registration no.HR-24L/5919, which was insured with opposite party vide policy no. 233200/31/12/4489. The said car met with an accident on7.12.2011 at Neja Della Kalan while going from Malout to Sikanderpur and was extensively damaged. Claim was lodged with the opposite party. The car was got repaired from Sidheshwar Auto Services, Sirsa on 12.12.2011 and bills amounting to Rs.1,15,000/- were submitted to the surveyor of company Sh.Anil Sehgal. Vide letter dt. 31.5.2012, opposite party threatened to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the false grounds that the car was being driven by Paramjeet Singh and not by Malkiat Singh as intimated and also that the car which was produced for insurance was different and did not match with the statement and pre-inspection photographs. The company require representation within two weeks. The complainant in its reply made it clear that there was no question of showing other car for insurance. The car was inspected through Mac company. The official of the company had approached Malkiat Singh to sign some statement and his driving licence was also verified. Moreover, Paramjeet Singh is also having a valid driving licence, which was also sent to the company. Thus, the repudiation of opposite party is totally without any basis. Hence, the present complaint for payment of Rs.1,10,000/- as costs of repair alongwith interest, besides compensation for harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses etc.
2. Opposite party in its reply has pleaded that that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The complainant while lodging his claim had mentioned the fact in the claim form that the insured accidental vehicle was beign driven by Sh.Malkiat Singh, but during the course of investigation, it transpired that the vehicle was being driven by Paramjeet Singh son-in-law of complainant. Moreover, the size and design of the words on the number plate of the car in pre and post accident snaps did not match each other. The words written on the number plate of the car were of simple types at the time of insurance, but after the accident, the words the words were found in Italic style and prior to accident, there was no yellow colour sticker on milometer, while after the accident, a yellow colour sticker was found. So, the insured car was not found to be the same as was insured by opposite party. Thus, the complainant concealed the true and material facts and the claim was rightly repudiated.
3. Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9, whereas, opposite party has tendered documents from Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is admitted fact that car of the complainant was insured with Op and was damaged in an accident . Vide letter Ex.R7 dt. 1.8.2012, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the grounds that the complainant has concealed the facts of driving person who is on wheels at the time of accident and also that the vehicle at the time of accident is not the same which is pre-inspected at the time of insurance. From the perusal of reply Ex.C2 given by the complainant with reference to letter Ex.R6 dt. 31.5.2012 of the opposite party, it is clear that the driving licence of Malkiat Singh was verified by the company surveyor and also if Paramjit Singh is presumed to be the driver of the car, in that eventuality, the driving licence of said Parmajit Singh is also valid and said driving licence has been placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C4. Furthermore, with regard to second ground that the words on the number plate of the accidental vehicle are different is also no ground in the eyes of law because just for the sake of interest, a person can change the words of the number plate of the vehicle in simple or italic manner. If it was done, that cannot be taken ground for repudiation of the claim of the complainant. Even otherwise, the opposite party has nowhere stated or proved that the engine number and Chasis number are not matching with the accidental car. Thus, in our view, said grounds taken by the opposite party for repudiation of claim of the complainant are totally baseless and there is deficiency in service on the party of opposite party. The complainant is entitled for abovesaid claim.
6. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to
opposite party to pay Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint dated 27.8.2012, till payment. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, mental tension, humiliation etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2200/- against the opposite party. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
