Haryana

StateCommission

A/649/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBE SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

16 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        649 of 2015

Date of Institution:        04.08.2015

Date of Decision :         16.12.2015

 

1.      National Insurance Company Limited, Division No.10, Flat No.101-106, N-1, BHS House Connaught Place, New Delhi.

2.      National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, near Sadar Police Station, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Sube Singh s/o Sh. Phool Singh, Resident of Village Bajidpur, P.O. Jhamri, Tehsil Matenahail, District Jind.  

                                     Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

Present:               Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Ms. Nimarta Kaur, Advocate for respondent.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing the instant appeal, National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated May 28^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.152 of 2013. By the impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint filed by Sube Singh-complainant/respondent directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,05,777/-, that is, Insured Declared Value (IDV) to the complainant on account of damage to his car, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses.  

2.      The complainant got his car bearing registration No.HR-14H-8224 of Alto K10 make, insured with the Insurance Company from December 7^th, 2011 to December 6^th, 2012 for Rs.3,05,777/- vide Insurance Policy Exhibit  P-4.

3.      On June 13^th, 2013, the car met with an accident and was badly damaged. Daily Diary Report (Exhibit P-2) was lodged in Police Station H.T.M. Hisar. The Insurance Company was also informed. The surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.3,62,070.54 vide report Annexure A-4. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter (Exhibit P-3) which reads as under:-

          “This has reference to your claim intimation dated 13.06.2012 regarding assessment of loss but as per findings of the investigator M/s Royal Associates and as per your own statement as well as statement of Sh. Arun Kumar that the vehicle was used for hire and reward whereas it was passed for private use only and also there is a contradiction in date of loss, misstatement of driver as per DDR.  In DDR date of loss is 13.06.2012 but as per statement of Sube Singh that the accident took place on 12.06.2012 instead of 13.06.2012.

          Further also as per version of DDR there is a confusion of statement that at one place Sh. Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Maha Singh was shown as a driver and at another place, it was shown as Bijender Singh son of Sh. Sube Singh.

          So all pointed out above violating policy conditions of Utmost Good Faith as well as Limitations as to use.  We are repudiating your claim with immediate effect.”

 

Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply denying the averments made in the complaint and reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter.

5.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the repudiation letter on two grounds that (i) the vehicle was being driven by Bijender Singh s/o Sh. Sube Singh, who was not holding a valid and effective driving license (ii) vehicle was being plied on hire and reward whereas it was insured as a private vehicle. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon copy of DDR (Exhibit P-2) and statement of Sube Singh (Annexure A).

6.      A perusal of DDR (Exhibit P-2) shows that Bijender Singh was not on the steering wheel of the car at the time of accident.  His name figures in Exhibit P-2 only to the effect that Kuldeep Singh author of DDR accompanied him at the time of lodging it.  So, from Exhibit P-2 it is not possible to hold that Bijender Singh was driving the car.  Therefore, question of holding or not holding driving license by Bijender Singh does not arise.  The statement (Annexure A) of Sube Singh relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to prove that car was being driven on hire and reward, is also not acceptable.  A reading of statement (Annexure A) makes it clear that it was not the case of Sube Singh that car was being driven as a taxi.  It was stated by him that he had purchased the car by taking loan.  He was paying the installments regularly.  Thereafter, he defaulted because he had no source of income to pay the installments.  From this statement, it cannot be said that car was being driven as a taxi.  This being so, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable and hence repelled.  

7.      It was further urged by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the complainant had given consent letter (Annexure A-6) whereby it was stated by him that he was ready to accept Rs.2,25,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim on repair basis.

8.      Annexure A-6 is without date and is not clear to whom it was submitted.  Otherwise too, it is the case of Insurance Company itself that surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss at Rs.3,62,070.54 but the amount awarded was Rs.3,05,777/-, that is, Insured Declared Value. 

9.      In this view of the matter, it is established that the Insurance Company repudiated complainant’s claim to escape its liability to pay the benefits of the Insurance Policy. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.    On payment of the amount, the complainant shall hand over the salvage of the car to the Insurance Company.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 16.12.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL