DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1142 of 2009. Date of Inst:12.08.2009 Date of Decision:15.07.2010 Madan Lal son of Mr.Lekh Ram r/o H.No.1412/12, Phase-XI, SAS Nagar, District Mohali (Pb.). ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental House, P.B.No.7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Surendera Building, SCO 109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 3. M/s Royal Associates, SCF 132, Ist Floor, Sector 13 Market, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra-136118 through its Proprietor Mr.Kashmir Singh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Prahlad Bhagat Vasudev, Adv. for complainant None for OP-2 OPs No.1 & 3 already exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Madan Lal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs.99,044/- for loss/damages suffered in the accident. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- on account of towing charges. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) Pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant got his car (TATA Indigo bearing registration No.PB-65F-2781) comprehensively insured with OPs No.1 and 2 vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1) for a sum assured of Rs.3.92 lacs. The insurance policy was valid from 15.06.2008 to 14.06.2009. On 04.12.2008, the vehicle met with an accident on Delhi-Meerut Road. It was extensively damaged. The complainant reported the matter to the police. The insurance company was also intimated about the said accident. OPs appointed Mr.Kiran Kumar as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss and damage to the car. He prepared estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs.1,24,175.36. Thereafter the complainant got the car repaired from M/s Anil Corporation (Workshop) who raised the bill dated 17.12.2008 for Rs.99,044/-. The complainant paid the said bill vide receipt dated 20.01.2009. However, OPs No.1 and 2 vide letter dated 16.02.2009 repudiated the claim on ground of violation of the conditions of the policy i.e. “limitations as to use”. Therefore, the complainant served a legal notice dated 25.02.2009 upon the OPs but to no effect. The case of the complainant is that the car was never used for hire and reward. Nor the same was being used for hire on the date of accident. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that after dropping his uncle at Delhi, Sh.Harnek Singh (who was hired as driver) had proceeded to Meerut for bringing some medicines for the son of the complainant who is suffering from mental ailment. There was no passenger in the car at the time of accident. Nor the same was being used for hire and reward. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that the claim has been rejected on the basis of some inquiry report alleged to have been made by OP-3. According to the complainant, Sh.Kashmira Singh, Investigator appointed by OP-3 took signatures of Smt.Gurcharan Kaur and Mrs.Manish Kumar on some blank papers on the ground that the same were required for settlement of the claim and later on, the same were used for forging the false statements. According to the complainant, OPs have illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OPs No.1 and 3 were duly served but nobody appeared on their behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, OPs No.1 and 3 were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 24.09.2009 and 29.10.2009 respectively. 4. In the reply filed by OPs No.2, it has been asserted that the car was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant had taken private car package policy, whereas the car was being used for hire and reward. AT the time of accident also, the car was carrying passengers on hire. Therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated. It has also been pleaded that M/s Royal Associates (OP-3) appointed Sh.Kashmira Singh to investigate the matter. Sh.Kashmira Singh recorded the statements of Sh.Munish Kumar Bansal nephew of the complainant who specifically stated that the both the cars including the car in question owned by the complainant are being used for commercial purpose in routine and at the time of accident also, the car was carrying paid passengers. According to the OPs, the repudiation of the claim is absolutely correct and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In these circumstances, according to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the car in question was insured with OPs No.1 and 2 for sum assured of Rs.3.92 lacs and the premium had been paid. Nor there is any dispute regarding the factum of accident. The claim has been repudiated by the OPs No.1 and 2 vide letter dated 16.02.2009 (Annexure C-4) which reads as under:- “This refers to your claim under the above policy for accident on 04.12.2008. On investigating the accident, it has been found that the vehicle is used for commercial use in routine as well as at the time of accident where it is registered and insured for private use only. We are therefore, repudiating the claim for violation of ‘limitation as to use’ condition of the policy’. 7. The case of the complainant is that the said car was never used for commercial purpose. At the time of accident, Sh.Harnek Singh, driver of the car was proceeding for Meerut after dropping his uncle at Delhi. The said driver was going to Meerut in order to purchase some medicines for the son of the complainant who is suffering from mental ailment. 8. On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that it had appointed M/s Royal Associates (OP-3) who is a authorized detective and investigating agency for investigation of the case. The above said company appointed Sh.Kashmira Singh as investigator who submitted his report holding that the car was being used for commercial purpose at the time of accident. The report of the investigator is Annexure OP-2. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the statement of Sh.Munish Kumar Bansal, nor any alleged writing made by Smt.Gurcharan Kaur has been placed on record. Smt.Gurcharan Kaur has filed her affidavit that some investigator from Kurukshetra obtained her signatures on blank papers. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the investigation report (Annexure OP/2). Therefore, OPs No.1 and 2 have failed to prove that the car in question was being used for commercial purpose at the time of accident. In these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim is unjustified, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 9. As per the report of Sh.Kiran Kumar, Surveyor, the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.80,662/- . The complainant has actually paid a sum of Rs.99044/- to M/s Anil Corporation Workshop. So the complainant is entitled to Rs.80662/- as per the report of the surveyor. In addition to this, the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.4000/- as towing charges and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 10. The complaint against OP-3 stands dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer qua OP-3. 11. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the following to the complainant:- i) A sum of Rs.80,662/- as repair charges of the vehicle. ii) A sum of Rs.4,000/- as towing charges. ii) A sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) A sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay Rs.1,14,662/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.08.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 13. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 15.07.2010 sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | | 
