Complaint No: 59 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 15.03.2023.
Date of order: 06.02.2024.
Karandeep Singh Son of Amrik Singh, resident of Village Babehali, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
….........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. State Bank of India, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered and Corporate Office at 9th Floor, A & B Wing, Fulcrum Building, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400099.
2. State Bank of India, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Second Floor, Takkar Tower, B-XIX, Mall Road, Adjoining Golden Plaza, Civil Lines, Near Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Signatory – 141001.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Kuldeep Salhotra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Karandeep Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Car make JAGUAR bearing registration No. PB-17-C-1010 and took insurance from the opposite parties vide Policy No. 0000000027574548 valid from 17.03.2022 09:52 hours to 16.03.2023 Midnight. The complainant paid Rs.99,557/- to the opposite parties as insurance premium. It is pleaded that the vehicle of the complainant was duly registered on dated 24.04.2021 valid upto 23.04.2036 and on the basis of it, the opposite parties issued insurance to the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant got full insurance of his vehicle known as Dep Cap i.e. Zero Depreciation Car Insurance. It is further pleaded that the car of the complainant met with an accident and information in this regard was duly made to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that Surveyor reached at the spot and after inspection, he assured that the insurance claim will be definitely disbursed to the complainant and the complainant was asked to park his vehicle in the Service Station. The complainant fulfilled all the requisite formalities for releasing insurance claim in his favour. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested the officials of the opposite parties several times and asked them about the releasing of insurance claim in his favour, but he was always given lame excuses and ultimately, the opposite parties refused to release the insurance claim to the complainant on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant is allegedly black listed by the Transport Authority, Baba Bakala since 21.10.2021. Whereas the fact remains that if the opposite parties were well aware that vehicle of the complainant is allegedly put under the category of blacklist, despite that the opposite parties have issued insurance policy to the complainant. It clearly shows that the opposite parties are trying to manipulate the things at their own so that they may escape themselves from paying any insurance claim to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the act of the opposite parties vide which they have not released the insurance claim to the complainant is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulations of Insurance company, arbitrary, unconstitutional and according to law, the opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant alongwith interest from the date of due till its realization. As such there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant has procured an oral estimate for the repair of the above mentioned vehicle and as per the said oral estimate, the estimated cost of the repair of the vehicle is about Rs.4,94,920/- which is required to be paid by the opposite parties for getting the vehicle repaired. It is further pleaded that at last, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 17.01.2023 to the opposite parties calling upon them to pay the insurance claim to the complainant alongwith interest from the date of due till its realization. The said legal notice was duly acknowledged to the opposite parties and opposite parties gave false and frivolous reply to the said legal notice and refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is left with no option beside to file the instant complaint. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim of Rs.4,94,920/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 24% P.A from the date of due till its realization. The opposite parties may kindly be burdened with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant and litigation charges to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant may also be granted any other relief which they may be found entitled to.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that at the outset the captioned complaint is not tenable as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite parties invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant only after due perusal of all documents received and within the precincts of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of cause of action. It is pleaded that the answering opposite parties at the outset denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically admitted hereafter in this reply, and nothing stated herein should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. Anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent with what is stated in this written statement shall be deemed to be expressly denied. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite parties has not erred in offering services to the complainant under the settled business practices of insurance industry and terms and conditions of the Policy. As there is no consumer dispute between the parties, this complaint is not tenable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence deserves to be dismissed at the outset. It is further pleaded that keeping in view the facts, circumstances and law relating thereto the complainant has failed to produce any evidence or specific averments worth its salt to prove its claim admissible under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is further pleaded that 'utmost good faith' is an important element of contract of insurance and both the parties to the contract are under an obligation to adhere to the same throughout currency of the contract. The conduct of the complainant is violative of this fundamental principle of the contract of insurance. The instant complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law because the complainant has approached this Hon'ble Commission with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts. The complainant is guilty of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts and has obtained the policy based on such misrepresentation and concealment. The present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well. It is further pleaded that in view of aforementioned facts, it is submitted that the captioned complaint is frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and there has been no 'Unfair Trade Practice" or "deficiency of service" on the part of the answering opposite parties. The captioned complaint has been made to injure the interest and reputation of the answering opposite parties and therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further pleaded that the true facts are that the complainant had availed Stand-Alone Motor own Damage Cover for Private Car policy bearing No. 0000000027574548 valid from 17.03.2022 to 16.03.2023 covering Car bearing Engine No. 190117P0014204DTF and Chassis No. SAJBB4AN3KLT06245 for an IDV of Rs.34,50,000/- subject to certain terms, conditions, and exceptions. It is further pleaded that upon receipt of the claim the answering opposite parties appointed an IRDA Licensed surveyor M/s. B & S Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors for verification and assessment of loss. The surveyor has sent a Clarification letter dated 07.09.2022 to the complainant so that he can submit his final report to the company. The surveyor submitted the Survey Report on dated 31.10.2022 wherein he has given his observations as Violation of MV Act - Vehicle Not registered. The Surveyor has assessed the loss on Repair Basis to an amount of Rs.1,91,954/- without prejudice to cause, nature, and extent of loss / damage and subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that upon receipt of Survey Report their Annexures and photographs submitted with reports, it has been observed that the vehicle make and model JAGUAR Land Rover manufacturing year 2019 was registered on dated 24.04.2021. The online verification of the R.C has been got from the official website of the transport department and it has come out that it has been blacklisted with the reason "registration does not comply with the Govt. guidelines dated 21.10.2021”. As such from the above it become confirmed that the vehicle was not validly registered at the material time of loss. There is violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act which necessitates statutory requirement of registration of vehicle to ply in public place and display the registration mark as prescribed. It is further pleaded that an illegal act to ply the vehicle in the public place without registration and without displaying the registration mark. Further, as per the section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, no person shall drive any motor vehicle in public place, unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Motor Vehicle Act and the certificate of registration has not been suspended or cancelled. So the claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 30.10.2022.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Karandeep Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 alongwith complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Jitendra Dhabhai, (Occupational Manager – Consumer Litigation, SBI General Ins. Co. Ltd, New Delhi) as Ex.OP-1,2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/4 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the complainant but not filed by the opposite parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one Jaguar car which was allotted registration No.PB-17-C-1010 and was insured with the opposite parties. It is further argued that the car owned by the complainant met with an accident and claim was lodged. It is further argued that opposite parties had deputed surveyor who had inspected the vehicle but opposite parties have refused to pay the claim on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant is black listed by the transport authority Baba Bakala since 21.10.2021. It is further argued that since the opposite parties have received premium and refusal to pay the claim amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties argued that issuance of policy of insurance is admitted. However, it is argued that on receiving intimation M/s. B & S Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors was deputed to assess the loss and the surveyor had submitted his report on 31.10.2022 wherein the surveyor has given observations as Violation of Motor Vehicle Act- Vehicle Not Registered and as such since the vehicle was not registered with any registration authority as such there is violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 30.10.2022.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of policy of insurance Ex.C1, Copy of vehcle search report Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, post receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C6 whereas opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Jintendra Dhabhai Ex.OP-1,2/1/A, copy of policy document Ex.OP-1,2/1, copy of report of surveyor Ex.OP-1,2/2, copy of letter dated 07.09.2022 Ex.OP-1,2/2-A, copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP-1,2/3, copy of vehicle search report Ex.OP-1,2/4.
12. It is admitted fact that complainant is owner of car making jaguar which was allotted registration No.PB-17-C-1010. It is further admitted fact that the said car was insured with the opposite parties from 17.03.2022 to 16.03.2023 after receipt of premium of Rs.99,557/- . It is further admitted fact that car owned by the complainant met with an accident. It is further admitted fact that opposite parties have deputed M/s. B & S Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors to assess the loss. It is further admitted fact surveyor had assessed the loss on repair basis as Rs.1,91,954/-. It is further admitted fact that surveyor had also given observations that vehicle was not registered and was black listed. It is further admitted fact that opposite parties had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30.10.2022. The only issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties was justified.
13. Perusal of policy of insurance Ex.C1 shows that opposite parties had insured the vehicle of the complainant after receiving premium of Rs.99,557/-. Further perusal of the policy shows that there was no claim on the previous policy which was issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited upto 14.03.2022. Further perusal of policy Ex.C1 shows that under column about the motor vehicle to be insured the complete detail of the vehicle is mentioned alongwith registration number as PB-17-C-1010, name of the R.T.O. as Amritsar which clearly shows that opposite parties had verified all the facts at the time of accepting the premium. Moreover, the only plea of the opposite parties is that vehicle was black listed with the reason "registration does not company with the Govt. guidelines dated 21.10.2021" but it is not the case of the opposite parties that the complainant was aware about the black listing of the registration of the vehicle when he purchased policy Ex.C1. We are of the view that it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have verified the status of the registration certificate at the time of insuring the vehicle and receiving the premium. Although, there is violation of section 39 of M.V. Act but since no fault has been attributed to the complainant. As such we are of the view that refusal to pay the claim to the complainant by the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. The surveyor deputed by the opposite parties had vide its report Ex.OP-1,2/2 assessed the loss as Rs.1,91,954/- and we do not find any ambiguity in the report of the surveyor as far as assessment is concerned. As such complainant can be offered the amount assessed by the surveyor on non standard basis by offering 75% amount as assessed by the surveyor.
14. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,43,965/- i.e. 75% of Rs.1,91,594/- as assessed by the surveyor. The amount of Rs.1,43,965/- shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization which shall be payable to the complainant by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order alongwith costs of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 06, 2024 Member.
*YP*
