Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/62

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Abjit Singh

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      62

Date of Institution: 29.04.2015

Date of Decision :   28.10.2015

 

 

Gurpreet Singh s/o Gurnam Singh r/o  Village Begguwala,  Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                      ...Complainant

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.             .......Op

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Abjhit Singh Kang, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ravinder Kumar Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to make payment of insurance claim amount worth Rs.80,000/-with interest and for further directing OP to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he got insured his car bearing temporary no. PB-03-AE-T 3866, Engine No. 420065, chasis no. 011370, Chevrolet Beat with OP vide Policy No. 233200/31/2015/4983, valid from 27.10.2014 to 26.10.2015 of comprehensive policy. On 5.01.2015, car of complainant met with an accident with a truck and car of complainant was damaged in that accident. Due intimation regarding accident was given to OP and Surveyor of OP conducted spot survey and as per directions of the OP, car was sent to Padam Cars Pvt Ltd for repair. Complainant lodged claim worth Rs 80,000/- with OP by handing over all the bills of repair and other requisite documents for payment. It is submitted that at the time of lodging the claim, said car was having temporary number and as it was not road worthy, therefore, complainant could not get issued the RC of the vehicle. On 16.03.2015, complainant got registration number of the vehicle as PB-04V-8145 from District Transport Office, Faridkot and complainant also handed over the copy of registration of car to OP. Complainant approached OP many times with request to make payment of his genuine claim but OP kept putting off the complainant on one pretext or the other. Complainant was surprised to see the letter dt 30.03.2015, vide which, it is informed to him that his claim has been decided as no claim as the vehicle was not registered. Complainant made many requests to OP to make payment of insurance claim for damage of vehicle, but OP kept putting off the matter and ultimately refused to give the claim. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for directions to Op to pay the insurance claim worth Rs 80,000/- and Rs 10,000/- as compensation besides cost of litigation. Hence, the present complaint.

3                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.04.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement wherein asserted that at the time of alleged accident, car of complainant was not registered with the Registering Authority and as such, complainant was not the registered owner of said vehicle. As per record produced by complainant, alleged accident took place on 5.01.2015, whereas the car was got registered with Registering Authority on 16.03.2015. The insurance of car was taken on 27.10.2014, when it was purchased and as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle is supposed to be got registered with Registering Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase and no person can drive any motor vehicle on the road unless it is registered under the Motor Vehicle Act. Complainant has failed to get his car registered in the prescribed period and as such, complainant being not the registered owner of the vehicle was not competent to drive the vehicle and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation as he has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant did not obtain the certificate of registration within prescribed period and the car was even not registered at the time of alleged accident. As complainant was not the registered owner of said vehicle at the time of alleged accident, therefore, complainant being not the registered owner is not entitled to any claim or compensation. It is further averred that complainant has no cause of action against answering OP. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh S K Sharma, Div. Manager Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is an owner of car bearing temporary no. PB-03-AE-T 3866 and permanent registration no PB-04V-8145. This car was insured with OP from 27.10.2014 to 26.10.2015 under comprehensive policy. On 5.01.2015, this vehicle met with an accident in the area of village Pipli Tehsil and District Faridkot. Complainant immediately gave intimation regarding it to OP, who appointed a Surveyor to conduct  spot survey and  as per directions of OPs, the said car was sent to Padam Cars Pvt Ltd for repair, who charged Rs 80,000/- as repair charges. The complainant lodged a claim with OPs by handing over all the bills for amount of Rs 80,000/- alongwith other documents. Copies of the bills are Ex C-4 to C-7. Copy of Insurance Policy is Ex C-2, copy of RC is Ex C-3, copy of DDR dt 5.01.2015 is Ex C-9. Survey Report dt 9.03.2015 is Ex C-10. At the time of lodging of claim, the car was having temporary number. However, complainant had applied for permanent registration of car and paid lumpsum Road Tax on 26.12.2014. As the car was not road worthy, so, complainant could not get issued the RC of vehicle. On 16.03.2015, complainant got permanent registration no. of vehicle from District Transport Office, Faridkot and he handed over the copy of RC to OP. Complainant approached Op many times for payment of his claim but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant received a letter dt 30.03.2015 from OP, vide which complainant was informed that his claim has been decided as no claim as the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident. Copy of said letter is Ex C-8. OP have wrongly declared the claim as no claim as at the time of accident of vehicle, the complainant had already applied for permanent registration number and paid lumpsum Road Tax to Transport Authorities. The OPs have illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. Due to this act of OPs, he has suffered a lot of harassment, inconvenience and mental agony. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has prayed that OPs may be directed to pay insurance claim and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

8                                      To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. He admitted that car in question was insured with OP, which met with an accident on 5.01.2015 and complainant gave information regarding it to them and they appointed Surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle. At the time of accident on 5.01.2015, car in dispute was not registered with Transport Authorities and it got registered only on 16.03.2015. The insurance of car was obtained on 27.10.2014 when the car was purchased. As per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle is supposed to be got registered with Registration Authorities within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase and without getting the vehicle registered with Registration Authorities, it is not road worthy and no person can drive any vehicle on the road unless it is registered under Motor Vehicle Act. Complainant has failed to get his car in dispute registered in the prescribed period and he being not the registered owner of that car is not entitled to claim any compensation from OP as he had violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The OP issued a letter to complainant on 13.03.2015 to clarify the matter. The copy of the letter is Ex OP-2, but complainant did not take any action on this letter. So, as the vehicle of the complainant was not registered at the time of accident, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore, claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated on this ground as per law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9                                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                                          The case of the complainant is that his car was insured with OP, which met with an accident on 5.01.2015 within insurance period and got damaged. He gave information regarding it to OP who appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss. He lodged claim with OP, but they repudiated his claim as ‘No Claim’ on the false grounds. The plea taken by OP is that at the time of accident, the car in question was not registered with Transport Registration Authorities as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as per terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. As per terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, the vehicle must be registered with Registration Authorities under Motor Vehicle Act and OP have legally and rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on this ground. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

11                                  Ld Counsel for complainant argued that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. He applied for registration of said vehicle with Registration Authorities before accident and paid lumpsum Road Tax to District Transport Office, Faridkot on 26.12.2014 i.e prior to the accident and this fact is clear from the Survey Report ExC-10, where the Surveyor Mr Dinesh Kumar Goyal clearly mentioned regarding this fact on the first page of report. If it is presumed that at the time of accident, the car was not registered and it is the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of complainant only on this ground. He has placed reliance on the citation 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 114 Supreme Court titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Swaran Singh and Others, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Sections 15, 141 & 149 (2) (a) (ii) and proviso to Sub sections (4) and (5)- Validity of driving license- Defences for insurer – ‘Effective license’-Third party claim – Driving with an un-renewed license and being duly licensed are different terms and may amount to an offense, but not to affect the third party claim in itself – The words ‘duly licensed’ have been used in a past tense – Rule enables renewal of a license even after expiry. He argued that on the same footing, if it is presumed that RC of the vehicle expired during the period of insurance and it is un-renewed, then, Insurance Company cannot run from its liability to compensate the insured. He also put reliance on the citation 2010 (1) Consumer Protection Cases 653 in case titled as Amalendu Sahoo Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that even where violations of the Policy is found, Insurer should pay 75% of total amount as on non standard basis. He has also placed reliance on citation 2008 (3) CPC 559 Supreme Court of India titled as National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Nitin Khandelwal, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy. The appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis. He has also placed reliance on the citation 2006 (2) Consumer Protection Cases 33 titled as New India Assurance Company Vs Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad, wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that vehicle at the time of accident was carrying passengers more than permitted by rules – Even driver was not duly licensed – Order of authority below granting payment of full insured amount with cost and compensation cannot be sustained – Appellant directed to settle the claim on non standard basis i.e 75 % of Rs 4,32,000/- with 9% interest. They further held in para no. 4 of the judgment that not having proper valid license to drive a Maxi-cab as also carrying excess passengers than the licensed capacity are violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is for covering these contingencies that GIC has issued the guidelines for the Insurance Company for settling the claim on “non standard basis’, which is as follows:

Following types of claims shall be considered as non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons:

Sr No.          Description                                Percentage of Settlement
(i)	Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity	Deduct 3 years difference in premium from the deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher.
(ii)	Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity	Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim.
(iii)	Any other breach of warranty/condition of policy including limitation as to use.	Pay upto 75% of admissible amount.

 

12                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that if it is presumed that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was not duly registered with Registering Authority and it is a breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, then in that case also, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the whole claim of complainant and in that case, it is to be decided on non standard basis and therefore, in the light of above discussion, the complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to settle the claim of complainant on non standard basis and is hereby ordered to pay Rs 50,500/- i.e 75% of the total loss of Rs 67,333/-, which was assessed as per Survey Report Ex C-10 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 30.03.2015 i.e date of repudiation of claim of complainant by OP till final realization. OP is also directed to pay Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses to complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 28.10.2015                 

 

  Member            Member                   President

                      (P Singla)         (Parampal Kaur)      (Ajit Aggarwal)