JUDGEMENT

( Passed this on 3^rd March, 2018)

Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President

01.      This is a complaint of deficiency in service against the Opposite Party, insurance company for not settling the insurance claim of the damaged vehicle.

02.     The complainant purchased an insurance policy from the O.P. for Horse (Trailor) bearing registration No. HR 38 2755 having Chassis No. 415005GVZ208356 and Engine No. 40F 62341498 for IDV Rs.-7,50,000/-.  A cover note sans terms and conditions was supplied. The policy was valid from 30/7/2011 to 29/7/2012. At the time of purchasing the policy he had specifically told the representatives of the O.P.  that he was insuring the Horse only and not the Tanker, which was not his property. Accordingly cover note was issued, but instead of mentioning the Horse, Tanker was mentioned. It was immediately brought to the notice of the O.P.  and the complainant was assured that error would be rectified while issuing the policy. During the policy period the Horse met with an accident on 14/9/2011 and sustained heavy damages. The incident was reported to police and to the O.P.  on the same day. A surveyor was deputed. Repair expenses were assessed at more than 75% of the IDV. The claim was settled for Rs. 3,73,500/- after deduction of excess and retaining salvage by him. However the claim was withheld by the O.P. The complainant was told if the claim raised by one company at Kolkata was withdrawn, then the cheque would be handed over to him. He told them he had no concern with that company and he could not withdraw its claim. But the cheque was withheld. The repudiation letter was received on 12/12/2011. It is thus prayed to direct the OP to pay him Rs. 3,73,500/- with 20% interest from the date of incident along with compensation and cost.

03.    The O.P.  filed reply and admitted the policy. As par the reply, the policy papers with terms and conditions were supplied to him. It is denied he informed that only Horse was to be insured as the Tanker owned by other person. It is also denied inspite of discussion with the O.P.  the Tanker was mentioned in the cover note instead of only Horse and on being informed, the O.P.  said the error would be rectified in the policy. Accident to the vehicle is not disputed, but extensive damage is denied. It is denied he submitted all papers as demanded. The vehicle which was insured is a Horse and Tanker. Therefore the O.P. asked him to supply papers of the Tankers. It is denied the claim was settled for Rs. 3,73,500/- after deduction of excess and the cheque was to be handed over to him. Denying the reasons for non delivery of the cheque, it is stated the claim was repudiated on valid ground. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

04.    Heard the Ld counsels for both the sides. Perused papers. Our findings are recorded for the reasons given below.

FINDINGS  AND  REASONS

05.    From the documents on record it is a fact that the vehicle had met with an accident and sustained damages. The dispute is about insurance of the vehicle in the sense that whether only Horse was insured or both Horse and Tanker were  insured as a single unit. In other words, whether Horse and Tanker both were insured separately.

06.    As per the repudiation letter the claim was repudiated on the ground that as per the policy, both Horse and Tanker were insured but the complainant claimed only Horse was insured and it was not informed to the O.P. that the Tanker was not his property. On such misrepresentation of facts the claim came to be rejected. This is the only reason given for repudiation.

07.    On perusal of the policy cover note the model of the insured vehicle is a Tanker having registration no. HR-38-L- 2755, Chassis No. 415005GVZ208356 and Engine No. 40F 62341498. From this cover note it is not possible to ascertain whether Horse and Tanker both were insured or only Horse was insured. But prima facie it appears that only Tanker was insured, since it does mention Horse. The complainant has said it was an error on the part of the O.P. that instead of Horse the cover note mentions Tanker and when this fact was brought to the notice of the O.P., he was told that the correction would be made in the policy. This is denied by the O.P. Thus in this respect there is only word against word. Nothing could be said positively on this alleged error. Even in the Certificate of Registration also model name of the vehicle is not mentioned. But Chassis and Engine numbers mentioned therein are same as mentioned in the policy, which means the Registration Certificate and the insurance policy are of the same vehicle.

08.    The complainant has relied on the fact that initially the OP settled the claim at Rs. 3,73,500/- and cheque was also issued to him. It is submitted the claim was settled because the O.P. was satisfied that the Horse was insured and the complainant was entitled to get insurance claim for its damage. It is further submitted once the claim was settled payment should not have been withheld and that itself is deficiency in service of the O.P. In this respect the O.P. has not come with any specific reply. The fact of settlement of the claim and drawing of the cheque in favour of the complainant are simply denied in reply. However, the copy of the cheque on record shows it was issued by the O.P. From these facts it may be said that initially the O.P. was satisfied about the claim made by the complainant and the cheque was also issued. That also suggests the O.P. must have made investigation and only thereafter came to the conclusion that the claim was correct.

09.    It is to be noted that the Horse is self propelled vehicle as it is fitted with engine. A Tanker is either mounted on the Horse or pulled, drawn or towed by a Horse. A Tanker is not a self propelled vehicle and therefore there is no question of mentioning its engine number or number of cylinders in registration certificate. But since the registration certificate, filed on record, shows engine number and number of cylinders it means it is pertaining to the Horse and to the Tanker. So, when the Horse and Tanker, both were separately registered and insured, why the O.P. insisted for insurance copy of other vehicle is something inscrutable. There was no need for the same and perhaps for that reason, initially the claim was sanctioned and cheque was also drawn in favour of the complainant. In the given facts and circumstances it does appear that the complainant had insured the Horse but inadvertently or due to some reason the cover note displayed Tanker instead of Horse. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the reason given for repudiating the claim is not justifiable and the claim should have been allowed.

10.    We therefore allow the complaint and pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The O.P.- Shriram General Insurance Company, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- (In words Rs. Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only)  with 9% p. a. interest from the date of the complaint i.e.-07/09/2012.
3. The O.P.  shall also pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (In words Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) for harassment and cost Rs 3000/- (In words Rs. Three Thousand only)  to the complainant.
4. The order shall be complied by the O.P. Insurance Company within 45 days from receipt of copy of the order.
5. Both the parties shall be supplied with copies of the order, free of cost.