DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 3

 Instituted on:   04.01.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     15.03.2021

Parmod Kumar son of Sarwan Kumar, resident of Ward No.9, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Registered and Head Office, New India Assurance Building, 87, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 through its Branch Manager.

2.     The New India Assurance Company Ltd. branch Rama Mill Ground, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Samana, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

3.     Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. VPO Khurana, Near Golden Earth Global School, Patiala Road, Sangrur 148001 through its Manager.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   :Shri  Shubham Garg, Adv.              

For the OP No.1&2             :Shri  Harpreet Singla, Adv.

For the OP No.3                          :Ravi Paul Aulakh, Adv..

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Shri Parmod Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased a new Honda City Car bearing registration number PB-44-C-1100 which was got insured from the OP number 2 for the period from 27.3.2018 to 26.3.2019 vide policy number 36140131170300004193 and the OPs issued the insurance policy for the same. 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 22.7.2018 the car in question met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, who fled away from the spot. It is further averred that at the time of accident, the complainant was driving the car in question.  Thereafter the complainant immediately intimated the OPs about the accident and the OP appointed the surveyor and assured the complainant that the claim will be paid.  As such, the complainant got repaired the car from OP number 3 and spent an amount of Rs.96172/-, but the OPs number 1 and 2 refused to pay the rightful claim.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant the  claim amount of Rs.96,172/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs and further it is admitted that the OP number 3 has a regular tie up with the OP number 1 and 2.  It is admitted that the car in question met with an accident on 22.7.2018. It is stated that no DDR or FIR has been lodged against the truck driver.   It is denied that the surveyor ever assured the complainant that the claim will be paid.  It is stated that the claim could not be paid as the accident took place on 22.7.2018 whereas the vehicle was registered with the transport department on 23.7.2018 i.e. one day after the loss, it means the complainant was using the above said vehicle in question in violation of section 39 and 192 of Motor Vehicles Act.   It is stated that the claim has rightly been rejected. Lastly, the Op has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             In reply filed by Op number 3, it is admitted that the car in question was brought in the accidental condition and Shri Jtinder Kalra, Surveyor visited at the spot. It is further stated that the OP number 3 made it clear to the complainant that he will have to pay the charges of the repair as his policy is not cashless.   The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.  

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a new Honda City Car bearing registration number PB-44-C-1100 which was got insured from the OP number 2 for the period from 27.3.2018 to 26.3.2019 vide policy number 36140131170300004193 by paying the requisite premium to the Ops as the OPs number 1 and 2 had a tie up with the OP number 3.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on 22.7.2018 the car in question met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, who fled away from the spot. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that after that the complainant immediately intimated the OPs about the accident and the OPs appointed the surveyor and assured the complainant that the claim will be paid.  As such, the complainant got repaired the car from OP number 3 and spent an amount of Rs.96172/-, but the OPs number 1 and 2 refused to pay the rightful claim of the complainant on the flimsy grounds.  As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint. The complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. versus Ila Gupta and others 2007(1) CPJ 274 (NC) and it has been stated that Insurance Company repudiated claim. Ground, vehicle not processing permanent registration number at time of damage. Insurance company was aware of such fact at time of issuance of policy. By accepting premium, has impliedly accepted temporary registration number and therefore, now cannot refuse claim on such flimsy grounds. Insured held, entitled to recover insurance claim.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and has admitted that the vehicle was insured with the OPs/insurance company and has a regular tie up with the OP number 3.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further argued that the accident took place on 22.7.2018 and the vehicle was got registered on 23.7.2018 i.e. after one day of the loss. It is further argued that since the vehicle was not having registration number at the time of accident, as such, the claim has rightly been repudiated. The Ops have prayed that the complaint be dismissed. The learned counsel for the Op number 3 has argued that the car was got repaired and the complainant paid the charges for the same.

8.             To prove this case, Shri Parmod Kumar has tendered affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-4 copy of driving license  and Ex.C-5 receipt of Rs.96,172/- issued by the OP number 3 for repair of the car. 

9.             On the other hand, the OPs number 1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Shri Vipin Chaudhary Ex.OP1&2/1 and has deposed as per the written version, Ex.OP1&2/2 is affidavit of Er. Jatinder Kalra, surveyor and loss assessor and stated that he assessed the loss at Rs.89,000/-. Ex.OP1&2/3 is the repudiation letter dated 15.10.2018 wherein it has been clearly stated that the claim was repudiated as at the time of accident the vehicle in question was not registered one.  Ex.OP1&2/5 motor survey report, wherein the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.89,000/-.

10.           As per the complainant, he had purchased Honda car in the year 2018 and the car was comprehensively insured with the OP number 1 and 2 and further the OP number 1 and 2 had tie up with the OP number 3 i.e. Prestige Honda, so it is clear that the car in question was got insured by Op number 3 from the Ops number 1 and 2.  The insurance policy is Ex.C-2 and it was valid from 27.3.2018 to 26.3.2018 and the total amount of Rs.21,240/- was paid as premium. Registration of the car in question is Ex.C-3 and it shows that the same was got registered on 23.7.2018 i.e. one day after the accident of the car.  The car met with an accident and an amount of Rs.96,172/- was spent on its repairs and were paid by the complainant to the OP number 3.

11.           According to Op umber 1 and 2, the car in question was being driven without registration certificate at the time of accident and the claim has rightly been repudiated.  The complainant has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. versus Ila Gupta and others 2007(1) CPJ 274 (NC) (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that the insurance company cannot refuse claim on such flimsy grounds and the insured was held  entitled to recover the insurance claim from the insurance company.

12.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.96,172/- on account of insurance claim of the vehicle in question. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.   This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        March 15, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President