Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/65/2018

Vinod Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superme Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Manpal Singh

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                                                                                  Complaint No. : 65 of 2018

                                                                                  Instituted on     : 30.04.2018.

                                                                                   Decided on       : 24.02.2023

 

Vinod Singh son of Jaipal Singh R/o Village Bapora, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                                                                                                    ……….Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Supreme Mobile Auto Ltd. Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Authorized Signatory.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Com. Ltd. Unit No. 502, 504, 506, 5^th Floor Mahattta Tower B-1, Block Community Center Janak Puri, Delhi-110058 through its Authorized Signatory.

 

..……..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT, 1986.

                         

Before:         SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                     MRS. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

                    

Present:        Shri Manpal Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                     Shri A. Sardana, Adv. for the opposite party No. 2.

Opposite party No. 1 already exparte vide order dated   02.05.2019.

                                            

ORDER

 

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

 

                     Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is owner of a vehicle Scorpio bearing no. HR-61-B-8300 which was insured with the opposite party no. 2 vide policy No.2311201639473300000 dated 20.01.2017 and claim number of the same is C23001722107. On 16.12.2017, when the complainant alongwith his relatives was going to Bikaner on his above said vehicle, the alleged vehicle met with an accident with a Truck and the vehicle of the complainant was completely damaged. The complainant intimated the opposite party no. 2 on toll free number as well as also informed the opposite party no.1. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 asked the complainant to left the vehicle to the office of the opposite party no. 1, who is authorized dealer/person for repairing the vehicle. On 18.12.2017, complainant after arranging a vehicle left the above said vehicle to the office of opposite party no. 2 for its repair/maintenance. The opposite party no. 1 prepared an estimate amounting to Rs.7,42,990/- for repair/maintenance of the vehicle. But on 24.01.2018, the opposite party no.1 denied to repair/maintain the vehicle of the complainant, by saying that the opposite party no. 2 rejected the claim of the complainant. The complainant visited many times in the office of the opposite party no. 2 to settle the claim but they did not give any satisfactory reply and on 21.03.2018, opposite party no. 2 issued a letter to the complainant and rejected the claim of the complainant. Further on 28.03.2018 the opposite party no. 2 again issued a letter with the remarks “No Claim”. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.7,42,990/- alongwith 18% interest up to date, Rs.1,00,000/- as losses suffered by complainant alongwith 18% till payment, Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant as explained in relief clause.   

2.                  After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in their reply has submitted that during verification it came into knowledge of the investigator that the alleged accident was reported in the newspaper and according to the report, 10 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the incident. But as per the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, the seating capacity of the insured vehicle is 9.   Thus the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy related to “Limitation as to use”. As such the claim was rightly repudiated by the company. It is further submitted that the vehicle was not totally damaged in the accident. Moreover as per insurance policy the insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.5,32,140/-. The complainant has not incurred a sum of Rs.742990/- on the repair of the vehicle in  question and as such he has not suffered any loss of Rs.742990/-. The complainant never visited to the office of answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. However, notice issued to OP No. 1 received back served but none has appeared on its behalf. As such, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.05.2019 of this Commission.

3.                  Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Anx. C1 to Anx.C9 and closed his evidence on dated 17.01.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavits Annexure RW2/A and Annexure RW2/B, documents Annexure RW-2/1 to Annexure RW-2/5 and closed his evidence on 14.09.2022.

4.                  We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.                 In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. But the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No.2 on the ground that at the time of accident, 10 persons were travelling in the vehicle against the seating capacity of 9 persons, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  To prove the same opposite party No.2 has placed on record copy of R.C. Annexure RW2/2 and copy of newspaper Annexure RW2/3.  No doubt as per copy of R.C. the seating capacity of vehicle is 9 and there is some violation of terms and conditions of the policy but due to this violation, whole claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated.  In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition no.1394 of 2015 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Binod Kumar Singh decided on 13.09.2017, whereby it is held that: “Considering the violation of terms and conditions of the policy/warranty etc., payment of 75% of the claim on ‘non standard’ basis was in accordance with law and absolutely fair to the complainant”. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in 11(2010) CPJ 9 (SC) titled Amalendu Sahoo Vs. OIC has also held that: “Terms of policy violated-Claim repudiated by insurer-Repudiation of claim in toto unjustified-Settlement of claim on non-standard basis directed”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party No.2 is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount on non-standard basis i.e. 90% of the IDV of vehicle after deducting the salvage value. As per policy Annexure RW2/1, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.532140/- and as per survey report Annexure RW2/5, the surveyor has assessed the salvage value as Rs.12000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.532140/- less salvage Rs.12000/- less 10% on account of non-standard claim i.e. Rs.468126/-.   At the time of argument, complainant placed on record loan closer letter as Annexure JNA. To prove  the fact that  the whole amount has been repaid by the complainant  to the HDFC Bank  Limited.

6.                  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.468126/-(Rupees four lac sixty eight thousand one hundred and twenty six only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.30.04.2018 till its realization and shall also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. and to supply the copy of the same to the opposite party No.2.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.02.2023.

 

                                                             ................................................

                                                              Nagender Singh Kadian, President

 

                                                             

                                                             ..........................................

                                                              Saroj Bala, Member.

 

 

 

                                                             

                                                             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     Vinod Vs. Supreme Mobile Auto

 

Present:        Shri Manpal Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                     Shri A. Sardana, Adv. for the opposite party No. 2.

Opposite party No. 1 already exparte vide order dated   02.05.2019.

 

                   Arguments heard. Order pronounced. Vide our separate order of even date, the present complaint is allowed.

                     File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

 

Member                                                 President

DCDRC, Bhiwani

24.02.2023.