BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 180 of 2020                                                                

                                                          Date of Institution :    24.08.2020

                                                          Date of Decision   :    12.08.2024

Satpal Singh aged about 36 years son of Shri Bansa Ram, resident of Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Royal Sunderam General Insurance Company Ltd., Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its authorized person.

2. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its authorized person.

3. Prem Motors Private Limited JMD Pacific Square, Sector 15 Gurugram through its authorized person. 

….Opposite Parties.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT

                   MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER.

                   SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………..MEMBER 

Present:       Sh. Bhupender Khattar,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajesh Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.                                

                   Sh. Gaurav Arya, Advocate for opposite party no.2.                              

                  Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

ORDER

                   The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that op no.1 is an insurance company and op no.2 is broker/ commission agent of op no.1 whereas op no.3 is the authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki products. In the year 2017 complainant had purchased a new Alto Car with CNG from op no.3 at Gurugram and got the same registered vide registration number HR-24Y-9607 and on the asking of op no.3 he got insured his car from op no.1 through op no.2 for the period 02.11.2018 to 01.11.2019. It is further averred that on 27.09.2019, complainant alongwith his daughter visited Gurugram and while coming back all of a sudden the car caught fire. He immediately stopped the car and parked the same near red light of Ullawas and got help of passerby but as fire was not controlled, therefore, intimation was immediately given to the Fire Brigade office, which controlled the situation. That complainant also lodged a rapat bearing no. 047 dated 27.09.2019 with Police Station Sector 65 in this regard and intimation about incident was also immediately supplied to op no.1. The complainant also lodged his claim with op no.1 upon which op no.1 asked him to get repaired his vehicle from the workshop of op no.3 and further asked him to submit the bill of repair charges with op no.1. It is further averred that complainant took his vehicle to the workshop of op no.3 and vehicle was got repaired against total sum of Rs.97,909/- out of which a sum of Rs.85,000/- has already been paid by complainant to op no.3. That bill of Rs.97,909/- was submitted by complainant with op no.1 with the request to indemnify his claim under the policy but he was asked to submit other requisite documents but despite completion of required formalities and despite his several requests, the claim of complainant has been repudiated by op no.1 on 05.11.2019 by simply saying that fire risk of entire vehicle of complainant has not been covered under the policy and that as per technical report provided by Maruti Engineer fire is due to non MG Head Lamp cut out which are not related to covered accessories and held the claim of complainant to be not admissible. It is further averred that repudiation of claim of complainant by op no.1 is totally unlawful and is arbitrary and op no.1 negligently asked complainant to first get repaired his vehicle from op no.3 and promised to reimburse the repair charges and later on repudiated the claim of complainant on baseless plea, hence he is legally and factually entitled to get indemnified his claim under the insurance policy. The technical report on the basis of which claim has been repudiated by op no.1 has not been prepared in the presence of complainant nor any intimation in this regard was supplied by him by op no.3. It is further averred that had there been any such fault in the vehicle on account of which the fire developed in the car, is the fault only on the part of op no.3 through whom complainant has been getting services of his vehicle regularly since the date of its purchase. The ops have failed to indemnify his claim despite his several requests and have caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that no deficiency of service can be attributed to answering op in declining the present claim and closing of the claim file of insured as fire risk of entire vehicle is not covered, hence not admissible under the policy. Total fault lies upon the part of the insured. The insured failed to comply with the contractual obligations and did not co-operate with the insurance company and did not comply with the formalities and necessities and did not submit the material facts. It is further submitted that an utmost good faith is the basic principle of policy cover and violation of it causes insurance cover void ab-initio. The insurance contract is a contract between the insured and the insurer and is a good faith between the parties. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. It is further submitted that claim of complainant has not been submitted/ lodged with necessary documents till date with the insurance company and there is fire risk of the entire vehicle which is not covered, hence the claim is not admissible under the policy and this is complete violation of policy conditions. Therefore, answering op is not liable to make any payment to the complainant regarding his claim. The answering op repudiated the claim of complainant only as per terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.                Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is an insurance broking entity licensed with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and mainly acts as a facilitator of motor insurance products offered by various insurance companies including op no.1. In the instant complaint, vehicle of complainant has been insured by op no.1, hence they are answerable, if at all to the complainant for the alleged claim, if lawfully found due and answering op has no role to play in the present matter in dispute and name of answering op is liable to be deleted from the array of parties on this solitary ground alone. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.

5.                Op no.3 also filed written statement submitting therein that op no.3 is the registered dealer of Maruti Suzuki and only installs certified and approved spare parts and equipments from Maruti Suzuki in the vehicles of the customers, therefore, liability upon op no.3 cannot be fastened under any circumstances whatsoever. It is further submitted that predominantly the dispute/ issue in the present matter is between complainant and insurance op no.1. It is denied that there is any default on the part of op no.3 because of which vehicle caught fire. The complainant apart from op no.3 also availed the repairing and maintenance/ servicing facilities from others registered dealer of Maruti Suzuki namely Pasco Automobiles, Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dabwali Road and Hisar Automobiles, Sirsa road. Further, the service history records of the said vehicle shows that the component namely Head Lamp was not repaired or changed by op no.3 before this fire incident happened. However, the repair with respect of the said component took place at the workshop of Pasco Automobiles, near Rajiv Chowk on 14.01.2019. Any claim with regard to the said components cannot be legally denied by insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

6.                 Though documents were already placed on record by complainant but complainant has not tendered any document in evidence despite availing various opportunities including last opportunities and as such evidence of complainant was closed by order.

7.                The op no.2 has tendered documents Ex.R2/1 and Ex.R2/2. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rohit authorized representative as Ex. RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/A to Ex.R3/C. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and as such evidence of op no.1 was closed by order.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file and also gone through written submission filed on behalf of op no.3.

9.                 Although complainant has not tendered documents in evidence but documents placed on file by complainant can be read for just and proper decision of the case. From the certificate cum policy schedule placed on file by complainant, it is evident that vehicle of the complaint i.e. Car bearing registration No. HR-24Y-9607 was insured with op no.1 for the period 02.11.2018 to 01.11.2019. According to the complainant, on 27.09.2019 i.e. during the period of policy, the car in question caught fire and was damaged and on the asking of op no.1, he got repaired the car and spent total amount of Rs.97,909/- on repair of the car, out of which a sum of Rs.85,000/- has already been paid by him to op no.3. It is proved from certificate of Fire Brigade Officer, Gurugram that said insured car of complainant caught fire on 27.09.2019 in the area of village Ullawas and fire was extinguished by officials of their office. A rapat in this regard was also lodged in Police station Sector 65 Gurugram, copy of which is also placed on file. So, incidence of fire to the car is proved on record. However, op no.1 has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that fire risk of vehicle is not covered under the policy. The op no.1 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove its plea. The op no.1 has not placed on file any terms and conditions of the policy. So, it cannot be said that fire incidence was not covered in the policy rather insurance policies also cover fire incidence. It is also proved on record from bills that bill of the amount of Rs.97,907/- was raised by op no.3 against repair of the vehicle in question after the fire incidence. In this regard op no.3 in its written arguments has also conceded that op no.3 raised job card and carried out repairs on the vehicle in question and bill of Rs.97,909/- was raised against which complainant paid Rs.85,000/- only. So, op no.1 is liable to reimburse the said amount of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant and remaining amount, if any to op no.3 and non payment of genuine claim amount of complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op no.1.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 insurance company to pay the claim amount of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 24.08.2020 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. In case it is found that complainant has also made payment of remaining amount to op no.3, then op no.1 shall also be liable to reimburse the remaining claim amount to the complainant. However, complaint qua ops no.2 and 3 is dismissed as no deficiency of services on their part made out. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.                             Member      Member               President,

Dated: 12.08.2024.                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                    Redressal Commission, Sirsa.