BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 565 of 2010 Date of Institution : 03.09.2010 Date of Decision : 02.06.2011 1] Manohar Singh son of Sh.Mahn Singh, Resident of H.No.1440/26, Phase-XI, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2] Jitender Kumar son of Sh.Sohan Lal, Resident of H.No.986, Sector 56, Chandigarh. ….…Complainants V E R S U S 1] Reliance General Insurance Anil Dhirubhai Ambai Group SCO No.212-214, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head/Authorized Representative. 2] Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 through its authorized representative. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Varinder Arora, Adv. for the complainant. Sh.Maninder Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh.P.M.Goel, Adv. for the OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The present compliant has been filed by Sh.Manohar Singh and Jatinder Kumar against Reliance General Insurance Company under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) alleging deficiency in service for non-payment of car insurance claim. Briefly stated, the complainant is the owner of a Rhino RX Maxi Cab which was duly insured with OP Insurance Company vide cover note issued on 12.8.2009. As per the policy, the vehicle was mentioned as a commercial vehicle. On 20.12.2009 the car was being driven by Complainant No.2. While the car was in a stationary condition on the light point of IT Park, Near Railway Station, Chandigarh, suddenly a car came from the opposite side and in order to save a cyclist, it smashed into the car of the complainant. The car of the complainant was therefore badly damaged. The matter of accident was reported to the Police and DDR No.82, dated 20.12.2009 was lodged on the same day. The complainant informed the insurance company for on the spot inspection and the vehicle was then taken to the workshop for repair. An estimate of Rs.1,29,496.48Ps. was prepared at the behest of Surveyor of OP-1. However, the complainant was surprised to know that his insurance claim was refused by the OPs. The complainant has said that Mr.Vinod Bhan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor made a report that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle and hence could not be plied at a public place for commercial use without valid route permit. The complainant has said that the vehicle was insured as a commercial vehicle and the accident was not due to any negligence of the driver. The complainant was hence shocked to receive a letter dated 19.4.2010, which stated that the insurance claim filed by him has been closed as “No Claim”. Even though the complainant approached the higher authorities of the OPs to settle the claim, but his claim was not settled. He has thus filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and hence claimed the following reliefs:- i) | Amount of Claim | | Rs.1,29,496.48 | ii) | Expenses incurred upon estimate & other expenses. | | Rs.15,000/- | iii) | Damages for deficiency in service. | | Rs.1,00,000/- | iv) | Litigation Expenses | | Rs.11,000/- |
2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. The OPs in their reply have denied the facts & circumstances of the accident for want of knowledge. However, on receipt of information about the alleged accident, the company had appointed a Surveyor, who after inspecting the vehicle gave his report dated 6.3.2010 as per which the net liability of the company came to Rs.56,060/-. However, as the Surveyor had pointed out that the insured had no route permit on the date of accident and the said permit was got after the accident, the OPs had repudiated the claim saying that the vehicle was not plied in conformity with the Motor Vehicle act. The OPs have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The OPs have placed on record the insurance policy as well as the Surveyor Report. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record on file. 5] The vehicle of the complainant has been damaged in an accident when it was standing stationary on the light point of IT Park, Near Railway Station, Chandigarh. It is not the case of either of the party that the vehicle at the time accident was carrying any passenger or goods. Hence, at the particular time of accident, the vehicle could not have been said to be in actual commercial use. After the accident, matter was reported to the Police, who recorded DDR No.82, dated 20.12.2009 and the car was taken to the Service Centre. An intimation in this regard was also given to the OPs, who in turn appointed their Surveyor to assess the loss. A proforma invoice for repair of the vehicle was prepared at the behest of the Surveyor appointed by the OPs. 6] However, the claim of the complainant was thereafter repudiated by the OPs on the following presumptions:- “Your vehicle comes under the category of commercial vehicle& as per Motor Vehicle Act & no such vehicle should be plied in public place for commercial usage without any valid Regn. Certificate, Fitness Certificate & Route Permit.” The details of the vehicle are already part of the report of the Surveyor, which shows that the vehicle had a valid registration and fitness certificate. We have already mentioned above that the vehicle at the time of accident was in a stationary condition at the red lights in Chandigarh and there was no one in the car except the driver. Since the vehicle met with an accident at Chandigarh, the OPs have repudiated the claim. The objection taken by the OPs, in our opinion, is not tenable. Therefore, the repudiation ground taken by the OPs, in our opinion, is not justified. The complainant does not seem to have violated any condition of Motor Vehicle Act at the time of accident. Hence, insurance claim should have been paid. 7] In this regard, we need to refer to the recent judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3996 of 2011 in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Khursheed and another, decided on 22.3.2011, wherein it has been held that :- “…Insurance Companies are charging hefty premium for insuring the vehicles. Once the question of liability arises, the companies resort to one technical objection and the other. These Companies really chase people and literally promise everything at the time of selling policy. It is usual to see people struggle to run after agents and surveyors to get their rightful claims. Such agents then look other way and make insurers to make rounds to Company offices. Insurers are then made to approach the Courts and are even dragged to this Court on one technical plea or the other. No one really is made to read the terms while making him to sign on the printed forms for selling policies. This attitude must change. Atleast, the Courts should not be burdened with this uncalled for litigation” 8] The Surveyor appointed by the OPs, after assessing the loss, has allowed a claim amount of Rs.56,060/-. This amount also find mentioned in Para no.3 of the reply filed by OPs. 9] The complainant has only placed on record an estimate of repair/proforma invoice. In the absence of bill of actual cost of repair, we deem it appropriate to allow the amount as assessed/approved by the Surveyor. 10] In view of the above observations, we allow the complaint in favour of the complainant and direct the OPs to jointly & severally pay the following amounts to the complainant:- i) Rs.56,060/- as assessed by the Surveyor against the loss. ii) Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered due to deficient act of OPs. iii) Rs.7000/- towards cost of litigation. The above payments shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall, jointly & severally, pay Rs.66,060/- along with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment to the complainant beside paying Rs.7000/- towards cost of litigation. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. After compliance, The file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced 02.06.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
