Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. :125
Instituted on :15.03.2019
Decided on :28.10.2024.
Rajesh(now deceased) through its LRs
- Smt. Babliwidow age 46 years.
- Rohit age 27 year
- Mohit age 29 years sons and
- Mamta age 29 years daughter of late Rajesh
All r/o village Kheri Sadh, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Model Town, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.S.K.Dahiya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39B-6432 and the same was insured with the opposite party company vide policy no.35380031170100010517 for a period from 04.12.2017 to 03.12.2018. On 03.03.2018 the driver of complainant was coming from Sampla to Kheri Sadh, Rohtak by driving the alleged vehicle and a motorcyclist was performing stunt on road, who suddenly came in front of vehicle and due to which the tyres of the vehicle ofcomplainant touched the divider and caused damage to the vehicle of the complainant.. The vehicle was badly damaged in the accident. The motorcyclist fled away from the spot, due to which the driver could not note the registration number of said motorcycle. No one has suffered any injury in this incident, hence the matter was not reported to police. The complainant informed the officials of respondent about the incident and surveyor inspected the vehicle of complainant and asked the complainant to repair the vehicle and collect the bill. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.161552/- on the repair of the vehicle but the opposite party has not paid the claim amount to the complainant despite his repeated requests. Hence, this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.161552/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realisation, to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the complainant has availed the policy of Private vehicle, in respect of his vehicle Moto/Cruiser bearing no.HR39D-6432. It is further contended that there are two types of package policies i.e. Private car package policy and commercial package policy. Private car package policy is for private vehicle where the vehicle used for private not of commercial purpose. The policy apparently describe on the face of the policy that the policy is issued for private vehicle, so the contract of insurance in respect of vehicle while use of private is only coverage. The usage of vehicle is commercially and the contract of insurance is not of commercial usage of vehicle, the claim of the complainant is not payable as per contract of insurance. It is denied that a sum of Rs.161552/- has been paid by the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Claim of the complainant is not payable. It is mandatory to deduct the amount of Excess clause, depreciation, depreciation of parts, Plastic, Rubber etc. is applicable as per contract of insurance. It is further submitted that extra work or extra repair or extra new parts are not related to the damage of vehicle, hence not payable. It is settled law that mere production of bills or estimate cannot be the basis for discarding report of surveyor. The claim of the complainant does not come under the purview of policy, so the legal preposition has been applied. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.C1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 22.10.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 15.02.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant was used for commercial purpose whereas the complainant has taken the insurance of private car package policy. Opposite party has further contended that there are two type of package policies i.e. Private car package policy and commercial package policy. The complainant had taken the private car package policy so he is not entitled for insurance claim. On the other hand, contention of the complainant is that he never supressed any material facts from the respondent insurance company nor violated any terms and conditions of the insurance company. The respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant on illegal and baseless grounds.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per copy of Registration Certificate placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C5, the class of vehicle is mentioned as Maxi cab and at the time of insurance of vehicle, the registration certificate was perused by the insurance company. Hence it was the duty of the opposite party to look into the matter that whether the private car package policy can be issued for commercial vehicle or not. It is not pleaded by the opposite party that the complainant had taken the policy fraudulently by concealing any information or RC was not shown by the complainant.The insurance company itself placed on record a document Ex.R8 i.e. national permit and the period of validity of the authorisation of permit is mentioned as 03.03.2017 to 02.03.2018, so on the date of accident, the permit had already been lapsed. Moreover, it has been pleaded by the complainant that the vehicle was being used for private purpose and not for commercial purpose at the time of accident. Hence the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the opposite party. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. We have minutely perused the survey report Ex.R5. As per this report, the surveyor has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.56185/-.. In this report the estimated cost of labour of the vehicle is Rs.61000/- but the opposite party has assessed only Rs.13250/- against the labour charges. However, no authenticate reason has been given by the surveyor that why he had assessed the less amount under this head whereas the depreciation clause is not applicable under this head. As such,as per our view Rs.20000/- are less assessed by the surveyor. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.56185/- as assessed by the surveyor + Rs.20000/- on account of less assessment of labour charges by the surveyor i.e. total Rs.76185/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.76185/-(Rupees seventy six thousand one hundred and eighty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.03.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of 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 L.Rs of deceased Rajesh in equal share. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. 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:
28.10.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
