SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order to give direction to opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.33,492/- to complainant together with Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental loss, transportation, Lawyer fee etc. alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant who is having a Two wheeler Royal Enfield Bullet 350 motor cycle bearing No.KL-58-R-9208 (Chassis No. ME3U3K5C0GA998654) has taken an Insurance policy through OP No.4 with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(OP1), on 23/07/2021 and the validity of the Policy was till 22/07/2022 and it was bumper to bumper policy. The complainant’s vehicle met with an accident before the renewal date ie on 27/03/2022 and the claim was submitted to OP No.1 during June 2022. The insurance surveyor inspected the vehicle on 05/04/2022 and the vehicle got repaired and claim was submitted to the insurance company on bumper to bumper basis. The repair charges of Rs.33,492/- to OP4 and the invoice copy of them was submitted to OP No.1’s office. But not got any reply from Insurance Company regarding the claim. On repeated calls OP1 told that they cannot pay the claim as bumper to bumper terms has completed 5 years, but the term has been mentioned in the Insurance policy. Complainant submits that he had paid the policy amount including bumper to bumper charges. The manufacture year of the motor cycle has been mentioned in the policy as 2016, moreover bumper to bumper has been included in the policy. Complainant further submit that he had spent Rs.33,492/- and incurred a huge loss, mental agony and waste of time, hence claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and filed this complaint.
OP No.1 to 3 filed their version. It is admitted that the policy referred in the complaint was issued by the 3rd OP through the 4th OP, a dealer of motor cycle, as procured by Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd. The class of policy issued to the complainant is Nil Depreciation Policy and not ‘Bumper to Bumper policy’. The OP here by deny the allegation in the complaint. As per the IMT, Nil Depreciation policies are being issued to the vehicle which has not completed 5 years from the date of delivery of vehicle by the dealer. The complainant’s vehicle was delivered on 08/02/2016 and thus the above said class of policy could have been issued only to 07/02/2021. In the case of vehicles sold through the 4th OP, they were given the facility of issuing policies of the OP Company as porter point by generating policies from their end after entering the vehicle particulars through computer system. In the case of complainant’s vehicle, the date of delivery was wrongly shown as 10/02/2017 instead of the correct date 08/02/2016. It was by this wrong entry in the computer system, the class of policy issued to the complainant was happened to be a ‘Nil Depreciation’ instead of ordinary policy subject to depreciation. The 4th OP had wrongly entered false date of delivery while generating policy in collusion with the complainant to get undue advantage from the insurer, in the event of arising covered risks. He is entitled only for the general policy of vehicle subject to depreciation clause. The reimbursable loss to the complainant was assessed arriving to a total amount of Rs.21,019/- after deducting policy excess of Rs.100/- and salvage value of Rs.1,000/-. The net loss reimbursable under ‘Nil Depreciation policy was Rs.31,537/-. The OP 1 is always ready to pay the said Rs.21,019/-, which the complainant is not prepared to accept. Manufacturing year of the vehicle wrongly shown in policy is 2017 and not the actual 2016. There was no deficiency in service on the side of the OP insurance company.
After receiving notices, OPs 1 to 3 filed written version through counsel. OP No.4 remained absent and has not contested the case. Hence OP No.4 was declared as ex-parte and proceeded the case against him.
At the evidence stage complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents. He has been examined as Pw1 and the marked documents as Ext.A1 to A2. On the side of OPs1 to 3, three documents were produced and marked as ext.B1 to B3. After that the learned counsel of complainant filed written argument note and the learned counsel of OPs 1 to 3 made oral argument. Complainant’s main allegation is that though he had taken Bumper to Bumper Motorised two wheelers package policy from OP Nos. 1 to 3, through OP4, after paying sufficient premium amount OPs 1 to 3 failed to honour the accident claim of the complainant. Complainant alleged that the Insurance company colluded with OP No.4, denied his genuine claim.
The undisputed facts in this case are that complainant is the RC owner of Two wheeler, Royal Enfield Bullet 350 Motor cycle bearing No. KL-58-R-9208 from OP NO.4 and he has availed insurance for the vehicle from OPs 1 to 3 through OP4. It is also an admitted fact that the validity of present policy in dispute is form 23/07/2021 till the midnight of 22/07/2022 and the accident to the vehicle was happened on 27/03/2022 within the policy period. Complainant entrusted the vehicle to OP No.4 to repair the accidental damage. Further claim request was submitted by complainant to OPs 1 to 3 and the surveyor inspected the vehicle at the service centre of OP No.4 and made assessment of loss. The repair charge incurred was Rs.33,492/- and the complainant made payment. Further OPs 1 to 3 was ready to pay a total amount of Rs.21,019/-, the amount assessed by the surveyor, after deducting percentage of depreciation considering the age of the vehicle and parts of the vehicle, considering the policy of the vehicle as general policy.
OPs 1 to 3 contended that as per the India Motor Tariff, Nil depreciation policies are being issued to the vehicle which has not completed 5 years from the date of delivery by the Dealer. Here the complainant’s vehicle was delivered on 08/02/2016 and hence said class of policy could have been issued only to 07/02/2021. Further stated that in this case, the date of delivery was wrongly shown as 10/02/2017 and hence the class of policy issued to the complainant was happened to be ‘Nil depreciation’ instead of general policy subject to depreciation. OP Nos 1 to 3 alleged that OP No.4 had wrongly entered false date of delivery while generating policy in collusion with the complainant to get undue advantage from the insurer in the event of airsing covered risks.
Here it is evident that all the particulars for the Insurance was sent to Insurance company by OP No.4 from where the complainant purchased vehicle. OPs 1 to 3 contended that OP No.4 had wrongly entered the date of delivery of the vehicle while generating the policy as 10/02/2017 instead of 08/02/2016. During cross-examination Pw1 denied the said contention. In the instant case, OP 4 has became ex-parte. More over in Ext.A2 the Insurance certificate issued to the complainant shows that the year of manufacturing of the vehicle is 2016. But in Ext.B1, the Insurance certificate of complainant produced by OPs 1 to 3 reveals that year of manufacture as 2017. Here no material is before us to clarify whether OP No.4 had given wrong entry regarding date of delivery of the vehicle in the particulars given to Insurance company while generating policy. OPs 1 to 3 failed to submit those particulars, which are given by OP No.4 having wrong entry as alleged by OPs 1 to 3 before us. Moreover, Insurance company is duty bound to clarify every particulars before issuing policy especially policy having Nil depreciation benefit to complainant. Here, complainant has stated that OPs 1 to 3 had received premium from him for Nil Depreciation benefit. Hence considering the above said facts we cannot blame complainant even though there was entry that the date of delivery as 10/02/2017. In this case OP No.4 remains absent and did not contest the allegations against him evenafter received notice. Hence from the above facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 to 4.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.31,597/- to the complainant as loss caused to the insured vehicle. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. Opposite party 4 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for giving false description of date of delivery to Opposite parties 1 to 3 as they have not proved the allegations against him. Opposite party 4 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expense to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 4 shall comply their liability of payment within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount stated above except cost, bears interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per the provisions in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1-Payment receipt
A2-Insurance certificate
Pw1- Complainant
B1- Certificate copy of the policy dated 24/07/2021
B2- Certificate copy of computer generated Datas executed by OP4
B3- Survey report dated 28/05/2022
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
