DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                               Complaint No.  642

                                                Instituted on:    02.11.2016

                                                Decided on:       07.04.2017

Bachitter Singh son of Dogar Singh resident of Village Chhokran, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Dhareri Jattan, Bhadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala Punjab through its M.D.

2.     Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager, Mehlan Road, Sangrur.

3.     United India Insurance Company Limited, above Bank of Baroda, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.1&2     Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.3 :       Shri Satpaul Sharma, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Bachitter Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is an agriculturist and purchased one Mahindra and Mahindra Boloro Camper for Rs.6,52,000/- from OP number 2 and the same was got insured from OP number 3 by paying the requisite premium.  The OP number 3 issued policy number 1117053115P100984788 for the period from 23.4.2015 to 22.4.2016. 

2.             The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.1.2016 and got damaged and the same was sent for repair to OP number 1, who demanded the amount for repair and body parts, as OP number 1 refused to honour the cashless claim and as such the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,15,811/- to OP number 1 vide bill number 11989 dated 11.2.2016 and bill number 12481 dated 26.2.2016 for Rs.80,000/- and Rs.35,811/- respectively. It is further averred that the OP number 3 wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on 19.4.2016 on account of concealment of act, which was never on the part of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,15,811/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             No reply was filed by Ops number 1 and 2 despite granting various opportunities, as such, the right to file written reply was closed by order of the Forum on 10.01.2017.

4.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 3, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he has concealed actual true facts, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is stated that the complainant got insured the said vehicle as private one , whereas as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, survey report and surveyor comments, the class of vehicle owned by the complainant is LGV (light goods vehicle), so these particulars are of commercial vehicle, but the complainant did not inform the OP about the change of class of the vehicle i.e. private car to goods vehicle.  It is further stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as the claim has rightly been repudiated.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-2 copy of schedule, Ex.C-3 copy of RC, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of bills, Ex.C-8 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.C-9 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-10 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-11 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-12 copy of proposal form , Ex.C-13 affidavit, Ex.C-14 copy of motor vehicle insurance cover note and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/14 affidavits and documents and closed evidence.

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

7.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle Boloro Camper was purchased by the complainant from OP number 1 and later on registration number PB-13-AR-1708 was allotted which was got insured from the OP number 3 for the period from 23.4.2015 to 22.4.2016 under the policy in question. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.1.2016 and the same was got repaired from the Op number 1 and an amount of Rs.1,15,811/- was spent on the same as is evident from the copies of the vouchers Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 on record.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 3 i.e. insurance company wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.4.2016 on the ground that the complainant has concealed the material facts about the vehicle in question at the time of getting the insurance. 

8.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  The insurance policy on record is Ex.C-1, which clearly shows that the complainant got insured the vehicle in question, which is obviously insured by the insurance company after actually verifying the same.  But, the fact remains that the OP number 3 repudiated the claim on the ground that since it is a light goods vehicle and not a passenger vehicle as was being used by the complainant at the time of accident.  Ex.C-12 is the copy of proposal form of the vehicle in question.  It is an admitted fact that after receipt of the intimation regarding accident of the vehicle in question, the OP number 3 appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal to assess the loss, who submitted his final report dated 12.3.2016, whereby he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,08,127/- as is evident from the copy of survey report Ex.OP3/10, but the Op number  3 repudiated the claim that the complainant purchased a passenger vehicle policy, whereas the vehicle in question was for light goods vehicle.  But, since in the present case, there might be difference  in the premium rate of the vehicle in question, but at the same time the claim cannot be thrown on this ground only.  The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nitin Khandelwal 2008(3) RCR (CIVIL) 193 has held that even if assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.  The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.  In the present case also, we feel that there is dispute over the premium rate only, whereas the vehicle in question is insured one and it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question is not insured one.  Under these circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 3 is directed to settle the claim on non standard basis in view of the survey report, whereby the surveyor had settled the claim at Rs.1,08,127/-and as per the calculation i.e. 75%, an amount of Rs.81,095/- becomes payable to the complainant.

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.81,095/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 02.11.2016 till realisation. We further order  OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 7, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member