Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/734/2018

Sukhdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanket Dhall Adv.

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	734/2018
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Sukhdeep Singh aged about 32 years son of late Sh.Gurdarshan Singh, H.No.866, Sector 52, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Surendra Building, SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its General Manager/Authorize Representative.

 

2.     The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Extension Counter, First Floor, Adjoining Allahabad bank, Chandigarh Road, Kurali, Punjab through its General Manager/Authorize Representative.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Sanket Dhall, Adv. for the complainant

                  Sh.Parminder Singh, Adv. for the OPs.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the vehicle (Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire) bearing registration No.CH-01-AX-9410 insured with the OPs met with an accident on 30.05.2018, Near Swarghat(HP) at 1.00 a.m. (midnight).  As per the complainant, he sent his driver to Manali to handover some important documents to one of his clients and while he was returning back from Manali, the car in question met with an accident with a truck coming from the opposite direction at a very high speed, using high beam headlights due to which the driver lost his control over the vehicle and the car straightaway fell into 30 feet ditch.  The driver of the car suffered injuries and was taken to Hospital in an Ambulance. It has further been averred that the OPs appointed the surveyor to verify and assess the loss. On 26.09.2018, he received a letter from the OPs regarding rejection of the claim on the ground that the car was being used as a passenger vehicle.  The said letter was duly replied to by the complainant on 08.10.2018. According to the complainant, he approached the OPs many times but he did not receive any reply/response to the reply dated 08.10.2018. He incurred a sum of Rs.2,54,549/- on the repairs of the vehicle.  It has further been averred that the OPs have not settled the claim despite his repeated requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs have not denied the factual matrix of the case. It has been stated that  on receipt of the intimation regarding the accident, Sh.Jagjit Singh Sethi, Investigator was appointed to investigate the claim who submitted the investigation report dated 22.09.2018 which contained the statement of co-passenger namely Jimmy Kumar and copy of the DDR. A perusal of the DDR shows that the car insured as private car was being used as a Taxi as the occupants of the car had taken tour package from one tour operator namely “Bharat Booking” who arranged the private car in question for being used as  a Taxi.  According to the OPs, the car insured for private use was being used as taxi for carrying passengers which is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has further been averred that the surveyor assessed the loss to the car to the tune of Rs.2,22,608/- vide his report dated 12.09.2018.  Subsequently,  the OPs wrote a letter dated 26.09.2018 requiring the complainant to give his comments but he has not given any satisfactory reply and tried to twist the facts and as such the claim was closed as No Claim vide letter dated 13.11.2018. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record including the written arguments.
5.         Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs at the time of its accident.   It is also admitted fact that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.2,22,608/- vide his report dated 12.09.2018.
6.         The only defence of the Counsel for the OPs is that the vehicle in question was insured as private car but the same was being used as Taxi for carrying passengers and as such there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as limitation as to use.
7.         Per contra, the stand of the Counsel for the complainant is that where there is violation of condition of the policy as limitation to use, the OPs ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis instead of rejecting the claim as a whole.  
8.         After going through the rival submissions of the parties, the evidence on record and especially the law on the point, we are of the considered view that where there is breach of the condition regarding limitation to use, the OPs should have settled the claim on non-standard basis instead of repudiating it in toto.
9.         Here our view is strengthened from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in II (2010) CPJ-9(SC) wherein it has been held as under:-

“Insurance — Non-standard Settlement — Terms of policy violated — Vehicle insured for personal use, used on hire — Claim repudiated by insurer — Complaint dismissed by Consumer Forum — Order upheld in appeal — Revision against order dismissed — Civil appeal filed — Repudiation of claim in toto unjustified — Settlement of claim on non-standard basis directed”.

10.         In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Insurance — Vehicle stolen — Terms and conditions of policy violated — Claim repudiated — Settlement of claim on non-standard basis directed by State Commission — Insurance Company held liable to pay 75% of claim amount — Order upheld by National Commission — Civil Appeal filed — Breach of policy condition not germane in case of theft of vehicle — Nature of use of vehicle cannot be looked into — Claim cannot be repudiated on that basis — Insurance Company liable to indemnify for loss caused — Order of Consumer Fora upheld”.

11.         In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh, reported in II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis.
12.         The principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid cases is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
13.         Undisputedly, the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the vehicle in question to Rs.2,22,608/- vide his report dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure R-3). Hence, the complainant is held entitled to 75% of the said amount as assessed by the Surveyor on non-standard basis.  
14.         In the light of above observations, the OPs are proved to be deficient in rejecting the claim in toto.  Hence, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to pay 75% of Rs.2,22,608/- as assessed by the Surveyor to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the rejection of the claim i.e.  13.11.2018 till its realization.  The OPs shall also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The aforesaid order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by the OPs. 
15.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15.04.2019

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER