Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 171
Instituted on : 04.04.2019
Decided on : 30.07.2024
Devender Singh s/o Sh. Sube Singh through his legal heirs:-
- Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Late Devender Singh.
- Parveen s/o Late Devender Singh all r/o village LakhanMajra, Distt. Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
………Respondent/Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. RenuHooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of the car bearing no. HR-46D-4326, which was duly insured with opposite party vide policy no.35380031170300001379 for the period 02.05.2017 to 01.05.2018 against an insured amount of Rs.500000/-.On 06.05.2017 the said insured car met with an accident and was damaged badly i.e. total loss. An FIR no.0097 dated 07.05.2017 was lodged in P.S.LakhanMajra District Rohtak. In the said accident, son of complainant also sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. The complainant immediately intimated to the respondent regarding the said accident. Respondentdeputed the surveyor, who duly inspected and investigated the matter. The complainant furnished all the required documents/particulars including the cash memos of repairing as required by the respondent. Respondent assured the complainant to disburse the claim amount within a period of one month of the accident but failed to pay the claim amount.The act and conduct of the respondent in not disbursing the amount of compensation to the complainant is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.495000/- as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its actual realizationalongwith costs. Special penalty and litigation expenses may also be imposed on the respondent.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its written statement and in preliminary objections has submitted that the vehicle in question is a Taxi and was having a commercial policy having all India Route Permit. The permit is valid upto24.04.2017 and at the time of accident, the vehicle in question has no Route Permit to ply the Taxi. Thus there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the insurance company has no liability to pay the claim as demanded by the complainant. The accident took place on dated 06.05.2017 and the insured informed the insurance company on 14.11.2017. Thus there is a delay of more than six months for informing the insurance company. There is violation of terms and condition of the policy specially condition no.1 of the policy therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim to the complainant. The case was put before the DCC and the DCC recommended the case on ‘Non Standard Basis’ amounting to Rs.319000/-.The said decision was discussed with the insured and the insured agreed to accept this amount and he gave a consent letter about this duly attested by notary public on a stamp paper of Rs.10/-. Thus he cannot demand more than this amount as agreed between the insured and the insurance company. On merits it is submitted that the vehicle in question has an All India Route Permit for carrying passengers and at the time of accident the vehicle in question has no route permit to ply the vehicle in question therefore the claim was not payable. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.11.2022. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 14.11.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the respondent the claim of the complainant is not payable on the ground that the vehicle in question was used by the complainant as taxi and for a commercial purpose. The permit of the vehicle was valid upto 24.04.2017 and the accident occurred on 06.05.2017 so as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is not entitled to ply the vehicle on road on the date of accident i.e. 06.05.2017 so there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and after considering all the facts and circumstances, the claim of the complainant has not been paid. To prove this fact the respondents have placed on record form no.47 issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rohtak as Ex.R2. The perusal of this document shows that the date of expiry of the permit was 24.04.2017. The validity period of tourist permit was from 26.04.2016 to 24.04.2017. The insurance company further placed on record verification of National Permit of the vehicle No. HR46D-4326 issued by Lokesh Arya Surveyor and loss assessor as Ex.R3. Upon this document also an endorsement has been made by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rohtakthat the permit of the vehicle bearing registration no.HR46D-4326 was valid upto to 24.04.2017. It is also observed that there is a cutting in the registration number of the vehicle. It has been further submitted by the insurance company that the complainant submitted a consent letter on dated 19.03.2018 submitting therein that he is agreed to accept the amount of Rs.319500/- towards full and final settlement on net of salvage basis(without RC), which is placed on record as Ex.R7. The DCC meeting has been held in the office of respondent and it has been decided that “Based on the recommendations of SLA Department, in principal approval is accorded to settle the claim on net of salvage basis with RC since the vehicle on superdari subject to cancellation of policy, agreed hire purchase clause and completion of all post approval usual formalities”. The Members of the committee signed on 21/22.03.2018. The above noted recommendation has been mentioned on Ex.R6. In this document the different modes of calculation of loss is also mentioned i.e. on repair basis it comes to Rs.624000/-. On total loss basis Rs.499000/-, on net of salvage basis it comes to Rs.319000/- after deducting Rs.125000/- on account of sub standard basis, Rs.52000/- with RC and Rs.3500/- as policy clause. We have observed that the opposite party has agreed to settle the claim of the complainant on sub standard basis as there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the permit of the vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. The consent for the same was made by the complainant on 19.03.2018 but till date no amount of settlement has either been given to the complainant or has been credited in the account of complainant. In this regard we have placed reliance 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 AmalenduSahoo 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 non payment of the claim amount by the opposite party on sub standard basis is illegal and unjustified and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount on sub standard basis to the complainant as per the consent given by the complainant. As per RC Ex.C2, the vehicle in question is hypothecated with Magma Fincorp Ltd.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.319000/-(Rupees three lac nineteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.04.04.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the financerMagma Fincorp Ltd. for the settlement of loan account of the complainant. After settlement of loan amount, if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the L.Rs. of deceased Devender Singh i.e. Kamla Devi wife and Parveen son of deceased in equal share. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainants are directed to move an applicationto RTO for cancellation of R.C within 15 days. Complainants are further directed not to use the vehicle in any manner and not to ply the same on road.
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:
30.07.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
…………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
