Delhi

North

CC/750/2009

KISHAN KUMAR VERMA, - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER BRANCH, - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 750/2009

 

Mr. Kishan Kumar Verma

S/o Sh. G.L. Verma

R/o 10/8 Tunda Nagar,

Jauhri Pur, Delhi                                                                        

 

Also At

Village Chithera,

Post Office Dadri,

Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.                                                    … Complainant

Versus        

The Manager/ Branch,

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Havig its office at

Division XX EMCA House,

4^th Floor, 23/223-B,

Ansari Road, Dariya Ganj

Delhi-110002                                                                                   … Opposite Party

ORDER

31/03/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

The instant complaint,  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was originally registered vide CC No.750/2009 and after examination, the Commission vide order dated 18.09.2013 dismissed this complaint being time barred. Thereafter, the Complainant filed appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi vide First Appeal No.1160/2013 and the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order dated 18.09.2013 and remanded back this case to this Commission vide order dated 11.05.2018 for deciding the case on merits. Thereafter, this Commission had issued the notices to both the parties and heard the matter on the basis of the complaint filed by Complainant, reply of the OP & rejoinder filed by the Complainant, evidence and argument put forth by both the parties.

The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No. UP-16-N-8429 make Toyta Qualis which was insured by the OP for the period 05.09.2006 to 04.09.2007. On 24.06.2007 the vehicle met with an accident within the jurisdiction of P.S. Nai Mandi. FIR No. 307/2007 was registered. The vehicle was badly damaged. Complainant filed a claim regarding damages and cost of repairs of the vehicle, however, the same was repudiated by the OP. On these facts, complainant prays that OP be directed to pay Rs. 1,65,000/-, the cost of repair of the vehicle with interest @ 18% per annum with cost and compensation as claimed.

On the other hand, the case of the OP, as disclosed in the written statement/reply to the complaint filed, is that the vehicle bearing No. DL-1VA-2424 was insured by it. However, it is alleged that the complainant got the registered number changed from Noida-Transport Authority on 18.01.2007. The new vehicle No. UP-16N-8429 was given by the Noida Transport Authority to the said vehicle. This fact was not intimated by the Complainant to the OP. Secondly, it is alleged that on the day of accident vehicle was being used for the commercial purposes, as it was carrying passenger for hire and rewards @7.50 per KM, therefore the claim has been rightly repudiated.

During arguments, the Complainant has filed copy of the Award dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, East District KKD Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 1210/08 to 1218/08 wherein the following issues have also been framed and decided to award the compensation to the affected parties travelling in the vehicle No. UP-16-N-8429 (for which the OP has repudiated the claim):-

“3. Whether the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and if so, to what effect? OPR3

4. Whether the petitioners in all the cases are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?”

Finding on issue no. 3 in the Award dated 09.07.2009

passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT

 

“It has been pleaded on behalf of the insurance company that insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners as there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Ld. Counsel submitted that policy was for use of vehicle for personal use but vehicle was found using for hire and reward. He invited my attention to the cross examination of the PWs. PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 in their cross examinations deposed that offending vehicle was hired by their father. They denied the suggestion that offending vehicle was borrowed by Sh. Harender Kumar Sharma. Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence in these cases. Even the insurance policy was neither filed nor proved. On perusal of criminal court record, I find that it contains a copy of insurance policy issued by National Insurance Company in respect of vehicle No. UP-16N-8429 in the name of respondent No. 2 from 18.01.2007 to 17.01.2008. It does not contatin any legible terms and conditions. It is, therefore, held that insurance company has failed to prove that there was violation of any terms and conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, issue No.3 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”

Finding on issue no. 3 in the Award dated 09.07.2009

passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT

 

”Since it has been held herein above that Sh. Subodh @ Shashank Sharma, Miss Seema @ Bhawna, Miss Nishu @ Nishi, Miss Anshu Sharma, Smt. Tarun Sharma @ Tarun Bala, Sh. Harender Kumar Sharma, Smt. Sunder Kanta, Sh. Sachin Sharma and Smt. Renu Sharma sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. UP-16-N-8429 by respondent No.1, therefore, petitioners have become entitled to get compensation from the respondents. Let us now see as to what amount of compensation, petitioner are entitle to get and from whom?”

Accordingly, we have also examined the facts of the case and averments/documents/arguments submitted by both the parties & above award of MACT and observed that during the proceedings before the MACT, the OP has failed to prove that there was violation of any terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the award was passed against the OP. Since the proceedings/award passed in MACT are evidence based wherein award has been passed directing the OP to pay the compensation and therefore, this Commission is bound to take into consideration this award for allowing the complaint. It is also relevant to state that the OP has also failed to convince this Commission as to why this award should not be taken into consideration while allowing the instant complaint. Therefore, we observe that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the Complainant.

We, therefore, feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-( Rs. One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from 04-12-2009 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of payment. Besides the OPs are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for causing mental pain and harassment to the Complainant. The payment, as directed above, shall be paid to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                                                                      Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                     DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                       Member                                                                   President       

            DCDRC-1 (North)                                                    DCDRC-1 (North)