Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/131/2019

The Manager, - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.T. Srinivasa Raja, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

 

 

 IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble THIRU  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

    THIRU R   VENKATESAPERUMAL     :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 131 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.238 of 2013 dated 03.01.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Chennnai (South).

 

Tuesday, 27^thday of December 2022

 

The Manager

Corporate Motor Claims

Royal Sundaram

   Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Sundaram Towers

No.45 & 46, Whites Road

Chennai- 600 014.                                                                                                                  .. Appellant/ Opposite party

 

- Vs –

 

S.T.Srinivasa Raja

S/o. Mr. Thulasirama Raja

No.170 Sankarankoil Road

INTUC Nagar

Rajapalayam – 626 117

Virudhunagar District.                                                                                                            ..  Respondent/ Complainant

 

Counsel for Appellant /Opposite Party  : M/s.M.B. Gopalan

Respondent/Complainant                       : Served called absent

                                                       

This appeal has come before us for final hearing today, on 27.12.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

 

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

        This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.238 of 2013, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent, in part. 

 

                2. The Appellant herein is the opposite party and the Respondent is the Complainant.  For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, as per their ranking before the District Forum.

 

        3. The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Maruti LMV Car bearing Registration No.TN 67 K 7206.  The complainant purchased the said vehicle on hire purchase with ICICI Bank Ltd., Madurai.  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.1,87,736/-.  The complainant insured the vehicle for the period from 03.01.2009 to 02.01.2010 with the opposite party, by paying a premium of Rs.4707/- and received the Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule.  The complainant had also paid the life time tax of Rs.14,432/- to the Registering Authority, Srivilliputhur on 11.01.2008.  The complainant used fuel petrol and LPG in the vehicle and also got endorsement to that effect from the Registering Authority.  The LPG endorsement in the RC Book was also informed to the opposite party.  Whileso, on 04.11.2009 at about 05.30 p.m suddenly fire broke out in the engine, due to leakage of petrol.  When the driver of the vehicle started the vehicle from the house of the complainant, the accident had occurred.  Immediately, the complainant informed to the Fire Services, Rajapalayam about the accident and the fire services personnel rushed to the spot and put off the fire.  But the vehicle got completely burnt off.  The driver gave a complaint to the South Police Station, Rajapalayam and based on the complaint No.428/2009 the police issued an accident certificate.  The police investigation certificate reveals that the accident had occurred due to leakage of petrol from the vehicle.  Since the complainant had insured the vehicle with the opposite party, a claim No.MP 00346855 was made requesting to pay a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-.  But, on 07.12.2009 the opposite party had sent a letter denying payment of compensation to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 08.09.2010 to the opposite party.  But, there was no response to the legal notice.  Hence, alleging deficiency of service he has filed the complaint before the District Forum Chennai (South) for the following directions to the opposite party:-

1. To pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.1,80,000/- for the vehicle damage;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for pain; and
3. To pay the cost of the proceedings.

 

        4.  The opposite party has filed a version stating that the complaint is not maintainable in law and facts.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 07.12.2009 but the complaint was filed on 02.07.2013, after more than 3½ years from the date of repudiation.  The complainant had taken insurance and renewed the same for his Maruti Omni vehicle as a petrol engine vehicle, without any CNG/ LPG kit attached.  The vehicle originally had no LPG kit attached.  It was registered only as a petrol engine vehicle.  The policy was taken only for such vehicle and the same was renewed without disclosure of any alteration/ addition of LPG kit.  The opposite party had also issued the policy for the period 03.01.2009 to 02.01.2010 without being informed of the LPG kit, having been installed in the vehicle.  If the same had been informed the opposite party would have charged an additional premium, which has not been done due to non-disclosure of the same.  The inclusion of the LPG kit is a material alteration of the vehicle which affects the risk and for which no additional premium has been paid by the complainant.  The complainant intimated about the damage to the vehicle due to fire, on 04.11.2009.  Although the complainant had managed to provide documents as if it was due to petrol leakage, there was no independent evidence to prove the same.  The addition of LPG kit is the cause for the fire.  In any event, the contract of insurance itself is void and the opposite party has no liability due to the material alteration made in the vehicle, non-disclosure of the same and also non payment of additional premium for LPG kit.  Hence, the claim was rejected by the opposite party on valid reasons.  The complainant had suppressed the fact that the LPG kit was added by altering the vehicle long after registration, which was not intimated to the opposite party.  It is specifically denied that LPG endorsement in the RC Book was informed to the opposite party.  In fact, the opposite party had appointed an IRDA licensed surveyor under Section 64UM of Insurance Act, 1938 to assess and quantify the net loss of damages and the said surveyor had assessed a sum of Rs.1,67,388/- towards the loss.  The surveyor had observed that fire accident had happened due to the fitting of LPG Kit in the vehicle.  As the complainant had failed to disclose about the installation of the LPG kit in the vehicle, the opposite party is not liable for the same.  Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

                5. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 8 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.  On the side of the opposite party, along with proof affidavit 2 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

        6.The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence and records, had observed that only with due knowledge about the installation of LPG kit fitted in the vehicle, the policy was issued by the opposite party, for value of the vehicle Rs.1,87,736/-.  Therefore, repudiation of the claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and thus directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,67,388/- being the value of the vehicle, after due depreciation and pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite party.

 

        7.  There is no representation for the respondent/ complainant.  Keeping in mind the submission made by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party, we have carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

 

        8.  The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent is that the District Forum has not properly understood the condition of the policy and it has erroneously come to a conclusion that the policy covers Bi Fuel kit.  The District Forum had misunderstood the standard policy terms, which provides for coverage of CNG/Bi Fuel kit but only when premium is specifically received by disclosing the same.  In this regard, counsel for the appellant/opposite party invited attention of this Court to the policy conditions and demonstrated that the District Forum had failed to understand that the policy schedule indicate Rs.0.00 as premium for Bi Fuel kit, meaning no premium has been collected and hence the installation of Bi Fuel kit was not covered in the policy, as the respondent/complainant had not disclosed the f    itment of CNG.  Thus, the appellant sought to set aside the order of the District Forum.

 

        9.  In view of the said submission, the exact entry made in the policy, under the heading “Schedule of Premium” is extracted :

“  5% extra premium towards inbuilt CNG ..   NA.”

 

Therefore, it is clear that the respondent/complainant has not paid any extra premium amount for fitment of CNG, as per the policy terms.  The vehicle was originally registered as petrol car and Bi Fuel kit was fitted only on 17.09.2008, more than 8 months after the registration of the vehicle and this fact was not informed to the appellant/opposite party.  Though the respondent/complainant had stated that only with the knowledge of the Insurance Company he had fitted the Bi Fuel kit, no proof has been produced to show that the said fact was informed to the opposite party.  Since no additional premium was paid for Bi Fuel Kit installation, the question of paying the compensation by the appellant/opposite party does not arise in this case.  With regard to the same, it would be appropriate to reply upon the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party, rendered by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. through its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Neelam Rishi in F.A.No.373 of 2009 dated 20.09.2013, wherein it is observed that,

 

        “9. The getting of an entry made in the registration certificate regarding the fitting of an approved gas kit is a separate condition than the condition regarding the giving of information to the Insurance Company and the payment of extra premium. The complainant cannot claim the insurance amount under the insurance policy merely on the ground that he had got an entry made in the registration certificate. The Insurance Company was not a party to that endorsement and it cannot be held that it had any constructive notice about that fact by virtue of making of the endorsement. The District Forum committed an illegality while allowing the complaint by recording a finding that the cause of fire was the short circuit and not the gas in the pipeline. The cause may be any, but the question to be determined was, whether the claim was maintainable under the policy without making payment of extra premium on account of LPG unit?”

The issue involved in this case is also similar to the case referred above.   In this case also, no additional premium was paid by intimating the fitment of LPG kit.  In such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for any claim and hence the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. 

 

                10.  In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.238 of 2013, is set aside.

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                            R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/December/2022