DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.475/2014

Sh. Kanwar

B-53, Bari Bhatti Village,

New Delhi-110074                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Director/Managing Director/Manager

Regd. Office: Oriental House, A-25/27,

Asif Ali Road, New Delhi-110002

Also at:

Branch office:

C-42, Second Floor, Freedom Fighter Enclave,

IGNOU, Neb Sarai, Near Mehrauli Badarpur Road,

New Delhi-110068                                                  ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 18.12.14        Date of Order                : 23.04.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Brief facts of the complaint as stated are:

1. The complainant, Kanwar, purchased an insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as OP for his vehicle TATA 407 2012 model for a period of 31.03.14 to 30.03.15.

1. It is averred that at the time of purchase of insurance policy the vehicle was open body vehicle containing a cabin with the sitting capacity of 3 persons. However, later the complainant converted his vehicle into a tanker from open body. It is stated that the alteration details were entered into the Fitness Certificate immediately on 07.04.14 by applying to the Concerned Authority.  Copy of the said Fitness Certificate is annexed as Annexure-4. 
2. Further the complainant applied before the concerned authority for entering the said alteration details of the vehicle in the Registration Certificate (RC) on 03.04.14 by depositing the requisite fee.   The vehicle was inspected and found to be in compliance with Section 52 and other relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act for the purpose of alteration of body of the vehicle into the tanker from the open body vehicle.
3. It is next averred that the complainant immediately informed the OP regarding the alteration of the vehicle into tanker open body but was asked by OP to first get the alteration details entered into the RC only then OP would enter the details of alteration into the policy. Meanwhile the vehicle of  the complainant met with an accident on 21.06.14 and severe damage was caused to the said vehicle of the complainant. The complainant reported the accident to the concerned police station and to the Branch Office of OP. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from the authorized service centre of Tata Motors and paid a bill/cost of Rs.2,94,321/- for the repair of the vehicle.  The complainant  applied for the insurance claim alongwith the bill and requisite documents to OP but the OP Company repudiated the claim stating that the complainant  had not got entered the details of alteration of his vehicle in the Registration Certificate and the insurance policy.
4. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant  prayed for direction to OP to pay the repairing cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.2,94,321/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Additionally to direct OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.  OP resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that  the complainant  is plying a commercial vehicle for commercial activities therefore he is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
   1. OP submits that it has specifically mentioned in the policy that OP shall not be liable to indemnify the claimant in case the vehicle is not being driven in accordance with the policy. Relevant portion of the policy is reproduced below:

Important Notice

“The Insurer is not indemnified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with this schedule.”

And as per the schedule of the policy the vehicle was only insured as an ‘Open Body’ and not a ‘Tanker’. Whereas at the time of the accident body of the vehicle was of a ‘Tanker’ and not an ‘Open Body’.

1. It is next averred that the Registration Certificate which was filed by the complainant with OP at the time of issuing the insurance policy specifically mentions the body of the vehicle as an open body and accordingly the premium was charged by the OP. It is pertinent to mention that the premium increases in case the body type is changed from open body to a tanker which the complainant very conveniently chose to hide from the OP to save the increased premium to be paid. The copy of the Registration Certificate provided to the OP is annexed as Annexure-A with the Written statement.
2. It is further stated that at the time of the accident of the vehicle body type was different than mentioned in the insurance policy as well as in the registration certificate. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was justifiably rejected by OP. Hence, it is prayed that the OP not being deficient in service the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3. Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint. 
4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Masood Wahab, Regional Manager has been filed on behalf of OP.
5.  No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
6. We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
7. Admittedly, the complainant got his vehicle insured from OP wherein the type of body mentioned in the policy is “open body” whereas at the time of the accident the vehicle is “closed body tanker”. OP repudiated the claim of the complainant  stating that ‘since at the time of accident the alteration of class of vehicle  to tanker of your vehicle has not been incorporated as per the M. V. Act 1988 and per policy terms and conditions and exceptions we regret to inform you that your claim is not tenable and is repudiated’.
8. As per pleadings and evidence, on getting the alteration done the complainant applied for a fitness certificate immediately on 07.04.14 and to the concerned authorities for entry details in R.C. He also communicated to the OP regarding the altercation.  Meanwhile, on 21.06.14 the said vehicle met with an accident and was severely damaged.
9. As per section  52 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- alteration in motor vehicle-  ‘no owner of a motor vehicle shall so altered the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufactures’.  The complainant had no permission to ply the vehicle as a tanker. The complainant was thus plying the vehicle in derogation of the Motor Vehicle Rules. 
10. Further we do not accept the arguments that on obtaining the fitness certificate from the Concerned Authorities on 07.04.14 complainant took more than 2 months to get the alteration details entered in the registration certificate. In fitness certificate annexed as Annexure-4 type of body  is overwritten and ‘Tanker’ is written by hand which further creates doubt in our mind regarding the authenticity of the fitness certificate. It is also noticed that no additional increased premium was paid by the complainant which he was supposed to pay in the case of closed body tanker.
11. Therefore, there was no endorsement to the effect of body type change in R.C. as well as in the policy and also no additional premium was paid with respect to change in body from open body to tanker. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the complainant that he had corresponded or informed the OP regarding the change of body type of the vehicle, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 23.04.19