Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/134

Amarjeet Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.K.Kapila

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 134 dated 16.03.2021.                                                                 Date of decision: 24.01.2023.

Amarjeet Yadav son of Shri Hari Narayan Yadav, resident of 2098, Street No.3, New Aman Nagar, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                          .…Complainant

                                                Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., having its office at SCO-457-458, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh and having its Local Office at Ground Floor, Sahni Plaza, Dholewal Chowk, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its authorized person.                                                                                                                 …..Opposite party 

                   Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Nitin Kapila, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle make Innova bearing registration No.PB-10DD-0017 and purchased the said vehicle for his personal use. The vehicle was insured with opposite party vide policy No.TSB/30322108 w.e.f. 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2021. The complainant stated that friend of the complainant namely Varun Mahajan had taken the vehicle of the complainant for his urgent need and on 26.12.2020 when Varun Mahajan while driving the aforesaid vehicle was going towards Ludhiana from Jalandhar, then on the way at about 08.30 AM he met with an accident near Phagwara due to heavy fog as the truck going ahead of him suddenly applied brakes and the vehicle of complainant hit the truck from behind and in the meanwhile, one TATA ACE hit at the backside of Innova of the complainant. Due to said accident, the front and back of the Innova car got damaged. There was no third party loss or third party property damage nor any injury was caused to any person. The complainant immediately lodged the claim with the opposite party and supplied all the requisite documents demanded by the opposite party. The complainant got repaired his car from the authorized dealer of Toyota at Jalandhar and after repair an invoice for Rs.1,31,525/- was raised and the said amount was paid by the complainant from his own pocket despite the fact that the vehicle was insured during the relevant period and it was also intimated to the opposite party. The opposite party appointed surveyor who visited the spot and checked the Innova car but in spite of number of reminders, the claim of the complainant was not paid and the complainant was unable to use the vehicle due to loss/damage in the accident. The complainant further stated that he was shocked to receive a letter dated 26.02.2021 from the opposite party vide which he was informed that his claim has been repudiated alleging that the complainant has sold the vehicle to someone about 4 years ago i.e. prior to the accident. The repudiation made by the opposite party is illegal and is on flimsy ground. The complainant has never sold the vehicle to anybody. Moreover, prior to the accident, minor claims were lodged with the opposite party and same were dully paid by the opposite party. The said act and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which they are liable o compensate the complainant for Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses besides Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses and for making payment of Rs.1,31,525/- on account of repair of the vehicle along with interest @18% per annum. In the end, it has been requested that the opposite party be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,31,525/- on account of repair of vehicle along with interest @8% per annum and also for compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement. Under the heading of factual submission, the opposite party alleged that car owned by the complainant bearing registration No.PB-10DD-0017 make Toyota Innova was insured by it for the period 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2021 vide policy No.18690576 for private car as detailed in the Policy Schedule and all the terms and conditions were understood by the complainant. The benefits under the policy are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability of the opposite party is limited to the insured perils occurring within the policy period subject to conditions and exceptions as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party further alleged that the claim was intimated by the complainant for damage to the vehicle insured on 26.12.2020 due to involvement in road accident and the insurance company immediately appointed an independent and IRDA licensed surveyor Sh. Rajnish Kumar to conduct the survey and assess the loss to the vehicle and liability of the insurance company in terms of the policy terms and conditions. The opposite party also appointed M/s. Probe Services to investigate the fact of the claim who sent letter dated 18.01.2021 and the opposite party sent reminder letter dated 02.02.2021 and 10.02.2021 to the complainant seeking certain information and documents from him. The surveyor submitted his report dated 26.02.2021 whereby while assessing the claim amount he reported that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as he had already sold the vehicle 4 years back but the vehicle was still being used in the name of the complainant.  Then the authorized officer of the opposite party duly considered the claim and after due application of mind and in view of investigation report and as per policy terms and conditions & GR-17 of the IMT the claim was rejected as Mr. Amarjeet Yadav had no insurable interest in the vehicle and the intimation of the same was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2021.

                   In the preliminary objections, the opposite party assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability, lack of jurisdiction and deficiency in service etc. The complaint is barred under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. The terms of the contract of insurance have to be strictly construed as per which the present claim of the complainant deserves dismissal being outside the scope of terms of the policy.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the factual submission and preliminary objections and has denied that there is any deficiency of service. The opposite party further alleged that the insurance company has provided full services and has decided the claim in terms of the insurance terms and conditions. The complainant is not entitled to any amount from the insurance company and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex. C2 is the copy of aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C3 is the copy of pollution certificate, Ex. C4 is the copy of driving licence of Varun Mahajan, Ex. C5 is the copy of insurance certificate w.e.f. 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2021, Ex. C6 is the copy of affidavit of the complainant dated 11.01.2021, Ex. C7 is the copy of letter dated 05.02.2021 written by the complainant, Ex. C8 is the copy of bill dated 26.12.2020, Ex. C9 is the copy of letter of Probe Services written to the complainant, Ex. C10 is the copy of reply submitted by the complainant, Ex. C11 is the copy of repair bill, Ex. C12 is the repudiation letter dated 26.02.2021 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Jitendra Dhabhai, Authorized signatory of the opposite party along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of letter dated 02.09.2020 written by the opposite party to the complainant, Ex. R2 is the copy of claim form, Ex. R3 is the copy of letter dated 18.01.2022 written by Probe Services to the complainant, Ex. R4 is the reminder letter dated 02.02.2021 written by the opposite party to the complainant, Ex. R5 is the copy of final reminder dated 10.02.2021 written by the opposite party to the complainant, Ex. R6 is the  final survey report dated 26.02.2021, Ex. C7 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 26.02.2021 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                In the present case, the claim of the complainant was not found admissible by the opposite party on the basis of observation contained in the investigation report/final survey report Ex. R6 of Sh. Rajnish Kumar, Surveyor to the effect that the vehicle was sold approximately 4 years ago and submission of the claim by the previous owner amounts to violation of General Regulation-17 of Indian Motor Tariff. The observations of Sh. Rajnish Kumar, Surveyor are the self contradictory. On one hand he has verified the complainant to be registered owner but on the other hand, without adducing any cogent evidence, he opined that the vehicle stands sold 4 years ago. Perusal of policy document shows that it was issued in the name of the complainant after receiving the premium of Rs.32,893/- from the complainant. The said premium was paid through NEFT from the account of the complainant maintained with State Bank of India. Had there been a transfer of the vehicle then certainly the premium was required to be paid by the subsequent purchaser. So it cannot be said that the complainant had not any insurable interest as well as no insurance contract at the time of taking policy or at the time of loss. As such, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not justified.

7.                The complainant has staked his claim to the tune of Rs.1,31,525/-. However, in his survey report, the surveyor Sh. Rajnish Kumar has assessed the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs.81,275.77 vide his report Ex. R6. The complainant has not challenged the report Ex. R7 in his complaint nor has controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement by filing rejoinder. So in the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.81,275.77 to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 26.02.2021 along with composite compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.81,275.77 to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 26.02.2021  till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party shall further pay composite compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Amarjeet Yadav Vs SBI General Insurance Co.                        CC/21/134

 

Present:       Sh. Nitin Kapila, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for OP.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.81,275.77 to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 26.02.2021  till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party shall further pay composite compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.