BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 185 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.4.2019
Date of Decision : 15.11.2019.
Sardul Singh son of Shri Amin Lal, resident of village Jandwala Jatan, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Chautala Road, opposite Civil Hospital, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Divisional Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………. …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manik Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Aashish Singla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the registered owner one Mahindra Xylo car bearing registration No. HR07N-9078 which was got insured with opposite party vide policy No.1119013117P107800520 valid from 1.9.2017 to midnight of 31.8.2018. It is further averred that on 19.8.2018, the complainant was going on the said car alongwith his family members and complainant was driving the said car and were going to Punjab. When they reached near village Roorkee Kalan, District Barnala, the above said car met with an accident with one motor cycle and car of complainant turned turtle and was damaged badly. The matter was reported to the op immediately by the complainant. That thereafter, complainant lodged the claim with op vide claim no.129 dated 19.8.2018 for an amount of Rs.two lacs and the op got signed the blank papers from the complainant at that time and op assured the complainant that said amount will be paid to him within short time. That on 5.2.2019, the op repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that vehicle in question was carrying paid passengers at the time of accident, however, the complainant was using the said car for his private use and was not using the same as commercial vehicle. No other person was driving the said car and complainant was driving the car. It is further averred that alleged DD No.23 dated 20.8.2018 was not lodged by complainant and he does not know Yogesh Kumar who has lodged this DD report with the police of P.S. Roorkee Kalan. That complainant had also submitted all the original bills regarding repairing of the car to the op and the op has refused to return the same to the complainant. That above said DD report is wrong, against law and facts and is not binding upon the right of complainant and same is forged one. That act of the op comes under the definition of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering from serious harassment and mental agony. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon op on 6.3.2019 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that insurance policy is subject to certain terms and conditions settled between the parties at the time of issuance of the policy and the parties to the insurance are bound by the same and violation of the same exonerates the liability of the insurance company. It is further submitted that as per intimation of the complainant himself, the vehicle in question was being driven by one Mr. Yogesh Kumar at the time of alleged accident and the vehicle was being used for hire and reward at that time as per police papers, which is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as same was registered and insured as private vehicle only. Moreover, the driver of the car namely Yogesh Kumar was also not having a valid and effecting driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The claim has been rightly repudiated by insurance company being not maintainable. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of first page of pass book Ex.C3, copy of policy Ex.C4, (Ex.C5 left), copy of claim intimation Ex.C6, copy of letter dated 5.2.2019 Ex.C7, copies of bills Ex.C8 to Ex.C14 and copy of registration certificate Ex.C15. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Balram Bhadu, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of policy Ex.R1, copy of certificate of insurance Ex.R2, copy of claim intimation Ex.R3, copy of motor claim intimation letter Ex.R4, copy of DDR Ex.R5, copy of driving licence of Yogesh Kumar Ex.R6 and copy of registration certificate Ex.R7.
6. Undisputedly complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR07N-9078 which was insured with op for the period 1.9.2017 to 31.8.2018. During the validity of the policy in question, vehicle met with an accident on 19.8.2018. Due intimation was given to the op and claim was lodged, but however, same was repudiated on the ground that “while processing the claim file, it was found that driving lcience of said driver was expired at the time of accident as well as per DDR lodged at Rurkee Kalan, it is stated that the vehicle was carrying paid passengers at the time of accident, whereas vehicle is insured and registered as private, on the other hand, insured replaced the body shell with disposal one, but he allowed its repair instead of disposal one. Carrying all the above said aspects, claim is recommended and approved for ‘No claim’.”
7. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has relied upon document Ex.C6 i.e. claim intimation dated 20.8.2018, which reveals that intimation was given to the op by complainant for the damage to the vehicle of complainant, but however, this intimation reveals that in the column of name of driver at the time of accident, the name of driver at the time of accident was filled as Yogesh Kumar having licence number HR2520130030795. The op has also relied upon document Ex.R3 which is copy of claim intimation dated 20.8.2018 (Ex.C6) and also motor claim intimation letter dated 23.8.2018 Ex.R4, in which name of driver is mentioned as Yogesh Kumar. Further, op has placed on record Ex.R5 copy of DDR which was lodged by driver of vehicle namely Yogesh Kumar in which he has stated that he is driver on the vehicle and owner of the vehicle is Sardul Singh and that he was carrying passengers in the vehicle at the time of accident and according to op carrying paid passengers in the vehicle in question is violation of terms and conditions of the policy since the vehicle was insured for personal use only.
8. Though, complainant has taken the plea that signatures of complainant were obtained by op on some blank papers and they have misused the same, but however, complainant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove this fact. Moreover, complainant himself has relied upon Ex.C6 which is copy of Ex.R3 which finds mention name of driver of vehicle at the time of accident as Yogesh Kumar. So, it is proved from the evidence of parties that at the time of accident, one Yogesh Kumar having licence number HR2520130030795 was driving the vehicle and was carrying passengers in the vehicle and after the accident, he informed the police and lodged the DDR number 23 dated 20.8.2018 with police station Roorkee Kalan and therefore, carrying passengers in the vehicle in question clearly amounts to violation of the policy since the policy was obtained by complainant for his vehicle for his private use.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:15.11.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
