DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

₌₌₌

Rajinder Kaur w/o Sh.Ranjit Singh Chandok, r/o H.No.2110, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

    ---Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., C/o Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.145-146, Top Floor, VLCC Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Branch Head/Authorized representative.

2.  Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 through its Authorized representative.

                 ---Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL             MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Varinder Arora,Counsel for complainant.

  Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.[MRS.]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         In brief, the complainant purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-70-A-2367 from Sh. Gurinderpal Singh and subsequently she got RC transferred in her name as well as necessary changes were made in the insurance policy. The complainant was allotted new registration No.CH-01-L-1622. Thereafter, the complainant sold the vehicle to one Sh. Sunil Kumar. According to the complainant, the said vehicle caught fire while the same was being driven by Sh. Sunil Kumar, who, immediately,  called the Fire Brigade [Annexure C-3], but the car was badly damaged before arrival of the Fire Brigade. The DDR No.7 dated 18.04.2010 (Annexure C-4) was also lodged to this effect. The surveyor carried out the spot inspection of the vehicle on 21.04.2010 at Panipat and gave his report dated 17.05.2010 mentioning therein, that few parts of the car were missing as the vehicle was standing on the highway for 2-3 days.  The surveyor further demanded documents such as RC, D.L., ID proof, Fire Brigade report etc. The complainant asserted that inspite of completing all the formalities and even serving the OPs with a legal notice dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure -5), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OPs filed written statement and took some preliminary objections. On merits, the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. It has been pleaded that the vehicle was insured from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. After lodging of the claim, M/s Royal Associates was appointed to investigate the matter who stated in its report that the claim is not genuine. The investigator opined in his report (Annexure R-1) that the date, time and place of the fire is not correct and the insured did not cooperate fully and  many discrepancies were found in the statements of the persons who are going in the vehicle at the time of incident. It has further been pleaded that the surveyor – M/s Chawla Associates stated in its report that many parts of the vehicle were missing and no efforts/care were made to safeguard the vehicle. According to the OPs, the loss was discussed with the complainant and she agreed to accept a sum of Rs.6.20 lacs towards the loss. It has further been stated that earlier the vehicle was insured with M/s National Insurance co. and the policy was valid for 31.05.2008 to 30.05.2009 and during that period major loss occurred and was settled on NOS basis and the vehicle was got repaired and transferred in the name of the insured but this aspect of the case was never disclosed to the OPs. Further, the vehicle was not got tested for the road worthiness and no certificate from MVI was obtained and hence there was suppression of the material facts and non-disclosure of the true facts and as such no claim was payable. Consequently, the complainant was written letter on 21.02.2011 (Annexure R-4) to clarify the above facts but to no effect and hence the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim.  According to the Ops, as the complainant has herself stated that she had sold the vehicle to Sh. Sunil Kumar and as such she had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.       The grouse of the Complainant (the registered owner of the vehicle) in this complaint is that the OPs had not settled the claim of he insured vehicle, till date, despite the fact that all the relevant documents towards the completion of the claim have been submitted to the OPs, within specific time. The car in question was badly damaged in a fire, due to short circuit on the highway. Thereupon, the driver of the car called the Fire Brigade and informed the police of the concerned area [Annexure C-3 & C-4]. Thereafter, while submitting the claim to the insurance company, the Complainant requested the OP for spot inspection, as the vehicle was not in a roadworthy position and could not be plied on the road.  The surveyor, after thorough inspection, reported missing of few essential parts, and has raised the unreasonable objections and has demanded other information, along with some documents.  The Complainant stated that the vehicle remained standing unattended on the highway for 2-3 days, so it can be possible that the said essential items could have been stolen there only. The Complainant alleged negligent act of the OPs by not settling the claim of the damaged car, which resulted into huge monetary loss, as well as wastage of valuable time.

6.       On the other hand, the OPs in their written reply admitted that the insured vehicle was burnt and destroyed in the fire during the subsistence of the policy and also accepted that the claim was lodged in respect of the alleged damage. But in order to investigate the matter and to find out the genuineness of the claim, the investigator was appointed, who reported that, that was not a genuine claim. It was opined by the investigator in his report Annexure R-1 that date, time and place of the fire is not correct and discrepancies were found in the statement of the persons, who were going in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Even during the spot assessment of loss by the surveyor, he found many parts missing from the vehicle, as it was lying unattended on the road side [Ann. R-2 & R-3]. No efforts or reasonable care was taken to safeguard and protect the vehicle. 

7.       The OPs further added that the said vehicle was previously insured with M/s National Insurance Company and during the subsistence of the said policy; major loss was occurred and was settled on N.O.S. This aspect of the matter was never disclosed to the OPs, even the vehicle was not got tested for the roadworthiness and no certificate from the MVI was obtained. Hence, there was suppression of material facts, as well as non-disclosure of the true facts and accordingly, such claim was not found payable.

8.       In view of the foregoings, it has been ascertained from the facts of the case, as well as from the evidence placed on file that the OPs rejected the claim of the Complainant that also during the subsistence of the policy. The main ground for rejection was based on the report of the investigator, as well as the surveyor. Above all, the OPs took another plea that the said vehicle was insured with M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. and during the subsistence of that policy, the vehicle met with a major accident. The claim was lodged with the Company and was settled. This information was not provided by the Complainant before obtaining the present policy of insurance. Furthermore, the vehicle in question was sold by the Complainant to another person; therefore, the Complainant has got no insurable interest in the vehicle.

9.       Keeping into mind all the assertions made by the OPs, which as per their own opinion, led to rejection of the claim, seem no ground, because when the vehicle is insured by the Insurance Company, it is their duty to physically check and verify the same. If they have not done so, then, they cannot put the entire blame on the insured. So, once the vehicle is insured, it is presumed that the vehicle is fit & fine and if some mishappening happened, then the OPs are bound by the terms and conditions of the said policy. Furthermore, the OPs in their written reply has mentioned Annexure R-5 as terms & conditions of the policy, but actually they have not attached the same, along with their other documents, which indicates their malafide intention  not to place such factual documents, which would go in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs.

10.      It is pertinent to mention here that a consent letter placed on file by the OPs (Annexure R-3) throws much more light on the present case of settlement of the claim.  The effective and logical part of the said consent letter is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:-

“………….My claim has been worked upon and I hereby agree to accept the full and final settlement of my claim on “cash loss” basis for Rs.6,20,000/-. This consent is given by me after clearly understanding the mode of settlement of claim. I also agree to the condition that my policy will stand cancelled immediately upon settlement. I also confirm that I shall not raise any dispute/ issue against settlement of this claim.”

A perusal of aforesaid consent letter dated 25.10.2010 [Annexure R-3] left no room regarding the credentials of the parties in dispute.

11.      In view of the above detailed analysis of the case, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.6,20,000/- to the complainant towards the claim of the insured vehicle. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment & mental agony, along with Rs.20,000/- towards costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.12.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.       

12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.