Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/12/2019

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Sanghwan

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                        Consumer Complaint No.12 of 2019.

                                        Date of instt.:08.01.2019. 

                                        Date of Decision:16.1.2020.

 

Naveen Kumar s/o Shri Mahinder Singh, r/o VPO Barna, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                  Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered and head office at 24, Whites Road, Royapettah Chennai-600014 through its Chairman.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its regional office at SCO No.123 & 124, Floor 3, Sector-17 (B), Chandigarh-160001 through its Regional Manager.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Divisional Office at SCO No.97, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its Manager.

 

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Vikas Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.         

Ms. Purnima Malhotra, Advocate for the opposite parties. 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Naveen Kumar against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the OP No.1 provides the services for insurance of vehicle to the public at large. The complainant being the owner of a car of Skoda (Laura) Co. bearing registration No.HR-70B-7768 approached the office of OP No.3 to get his car insured and obtained an insurance policy bearing No.1126003117P110467323 dated 25.10.2017 on payment of requisite premium. On inspection of said vehicle, the OPs assessed its value to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. Unfortunately, on 17.2.2018 the said vehicle was met with an accident and a DDR was registered at PS Civil Line, Kaithal in this regard. That after accident, he immediately informed to the OP No.3 and on inspection of the vehicle declared as 100% loss and he submitted all the requisite documents as such as estimate of repairs, copy of DDR etc. in the month of February 2018. The official of OP No.3 also took his signatures on some blank papers and took the possession of the damaged car. The OP No.3 offered the complainant to purchase the damaged car for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and it was assured that the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- will be delivered to him soon. He accepted that offer and took possession of the damaged car from OP No.3 and Rs.6,50,000/- remained balance towards the OPs. That he requested several times to the OPs to pass his claim, but the OPs did not pay any heed to his repeated requests and the OPs issued a letter vide reference No.DO/KKR/MOTOR/2018 dated 29.10.2018 in which it was advised to give his consent for receiving the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- (including damaged car of Rs.1,50,000/-) in lieu of claim submitted by him. That after receiving the said letter, he became shocked and immediately contacted to the office of OP No.3 and requested to pass his claim and release the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, but all in vain. He sent a legal notice dated 31.10.2018 to the OPs through his counsel Shri Vikas Sangwan, which was not replied by the OPs No.1 & 2 but the same was replied by the OP No.3 through his counsel Smt. Purnima Malhotra in false and vague manner and contents of letter dated 29.10.2018 was again repeated in reply. The OPs have violated the terms & conditions of the policy and they are adopting the unfair trade practice and are deficient in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is stated that the complainant at the time of submitting details regarding the vehicle in question falsely disclosed its value as Rs.8,00,000/- while taking insurance policy from the answering OPs in order to take undue benefit of insured value and in continuation to that misrepresentation complainant has also submitted an undertaking in the form of affidavit to the OPs regarding taking the insurance for sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Believing upon the said information insured his vehicle accordingly, but later on when vehicle in question met with an accident, the complainant himself disclosed to the insurance company that he purchased the vehicle for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and as such, the complainant had himself disclosed the false information on the basis of which the policy in question was issued to him. So, in view of the disclosure of false facts misrepresentation regarding the value of vehicle, the complainant has played fraud, forgery and cheating with the OPs, hence the policy itself stands cancelled on the basis of terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. So, in view of the facts, the claim submitted by the complainant was rightly repudiated by competent authority. The car in question had allegedly met with an accident on 17.2.2018 at Karnal Road, Kaithal and intimation in this regard was given by the complainant to the OP on 08.3.2018 i.e. after 17 days from the date of accident. Moreover, DDR regarding the said accident was also registered after a delay of about 10 days. Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal only on this score only. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same with heavy costs.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9. The learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is the owner of car Skoda (Laura) Co. bearing registration No.HR-70B-7768 and got the same from OP No.3 vide policy No.1126003117P110467323 dated 25.10.2017. On inspection of said vehicle, the OPs assessed its value to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. He further argued that unfortunately on 17.2.2018, the said vehicle was met with an accident and a DDR was registered at PS Civil Line, Kaithal in this regard. After the accident, he immediately informed the OP No.3 and on inspection of the vehicle declared as 100% loss. He further argued that the OP No.3 offered the complainant to purchase the damaged car for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and it was assured that the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- will be delivered to him soon and accordingly, he took possession of the damaged car from OP No.3 and Rs.6,50,000/- remained balance towards the OPs, but the OPs issued a letter vide reference No.DO/KKR/MOTOR/2018 dated 29.10.2018 in which it was advised to give his consent for receiving the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- (including damaged car of Rs.1,50,000/-) in lieu of claim submitted by him. That after receiving the said letter, he became shocked and requested to pass his claim and release the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, but all in vain. He sent a legal notice dated 31.10.2018 to the OPs through his counsel Shri Vikas Sangwan, which was not replied by the OPs No.1 & 2 but the same was replied by the OP No.3 through his counsel Smt. Purnima Malhotra in false and vague manner and contents of letter dated 29.10.2018 was again repeated in reply. To support his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled Rakesh Agarwal Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Appeal No.A-245/2004, d.o.d. 13.12.2007, decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OPs has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in their written statement. She argued that the complainant has submitted an undertaking in the form of affidavit to the OPs regarding taking the insurance for sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and believing upon the said information, the OPs insured his vehicle accordingly. She further argued that later on when vehicle in question met with an accident, the complainant himself disclosed to the insurance company that he purchased the vehicle for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and as such, the complainant had himself disclosed the false information on the basis of which the policy in question was issued to him. So, in view of the disclosure of false facts misrepresentation regarding the value of vehicle, the complainant has played fraud, forgery and cheating with the OPs and accordingly, the claim submitted by the complainant was rightly repudiated by competent authority. She further argued that intimation regarding the accident was given by the complainant to the OP after 17 days from the date of accident. Moreover, DDR regarding the said accident was also registered after a delay of about 10 days.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 25.10.2017 to 24.10.2018 with IDV of Rs.8,00,000/- vide Private Car Package Policy dated 25.10.2017 Ex.C-2 and the complainant had paid premium of Rs.31,261/- in this regard vide receipt Annexure R-3. There is also no dispute that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 17.2.2018 and a DDR was registered at PS Civil Line, Kaithal Ex.C-3 in this regard. After inspection, the said vehicle was declared as 100% loss and Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. has given the estimated repair cost Ex.C-4. The value of the salvage was assessed as Rs.1,50,000/- by the OPs and it is settled that the complainant will retain the same without Registration Certificate and the rest of amount of Rs.6,50,000/- will be paid by the OPs, as is apparent from the affidavit given by the complainant Ex.R-1.

9.             The complainant mainly alleged that the IDV of vehicle in question was Rs.8,00,000/- and the damaged vehicle was assessed as total loss valued Rs.1,50,000/-, which was retained by him and now Rs.6,50,000/- remained balance towards the OPs. Whereas, on the other hand, the OPs refused to pay the assessed amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and offered to pay Rs.5,00,000/- on the ground that as per hand written statement given by the complainant to Shri Pawan Sachdeva vide which the complainant confirmed that he had purchased the vehicle in question for Rs.5,00,000/- from the Honda Agency Panipat and requested the complainant to give his consent for Rs.5,00,000/-, vide letter dated 29.10.2018 Ex.C-6.

10.            From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the dispute between the parties is only with regard to Insured’s Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question. However, from the Private Car Package Policy dated 25.10.2017 Ex.C-2, it is evident that the IDV of the vehicle in question was assessed as Rs.8,00,000/- and the complainant had paid premium of Rs.31,261/- in this regard vide receipt Annexure R-3, which was duly received by the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that once the IDV value of the vehicle was assessed by the OPs, then the OPs cannot re-assess the same, as per their choice.

                Our view is supported by the case law Rakesh Agarwal Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi has held that “once the market value of the vehicle is assessed by the insurance company at the time of issuing the insurance policy by way of insurance amount and the insurance company charges the corresponding premium on the aforesaid amount it is not open to it to re-assess the market value at the time of filing of a claim by the insured particularly if it is a case of total loss”. It is further held that since the surveyors also assess the value of the salvage, it is the choice of the insured to retain the salvage or to return it to the insurance company. It is further held that “Taking over all view of the case, we partly allow the appeal by directing the respondent to pay the insured value less 5 % depreciated value with interest @9% towards loss and also pay further compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment suffered by the appellant as even he was not paid even the amount settled by the surveyor and was made to run from pillar to post and had been called on a large number of occasions and taken the vehicle.

 

11.            Keeping in view the case law referred to above as well as the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that by not paying the assessed IDV of the vehicle in question as mentioned in Private Car Package Policy Ex.C-2, to the complainant, the OPs are deficient in providing the services. In the present case, the IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.8,00,000/- and the total loss vehicle (salvage) was retained by the complainant valued to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, so the OPs are bound to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (8,00,000/- - 1,50,000/-) alongwith interest to the complainant.

12.            Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 08.1.2019 i.e. the date of filing the present complaint, till its realization, to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges, to the complainant. However, it is made clear that order will be complied by the OPs within 30 days positively, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:16.1.2020.                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.