DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/251/2021
Date of Institution: 29.10.2021
Date of Decision: 02.09.2024
Abhilasha Rani aged about 51 years wife of Sh. Harish Kumar resident of House No. 135, Ward No. 3, Moti Nagar, Dhilwan Road, Tapa, District Barnala-148102.
…Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, Natha Singh Tower, Meheshwari Chowk, 100 Feet Road, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited , Khati Bazar Branch Office, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Mohit Jindal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, Natha Singh Tower, Meheshwari Chowk, 100 Feet Road, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Honda City MT Diesel, Model 2016 bearing registration No. PB-19-P-2484. It is alleged that the complainant got insured her vehicle from opposite party No. 2 under Depreciation without Excess relating to the period starts from 19.08.2020 to 18.08.2021 and paid an amount of Rs 16,195/- as premium for the same to United India Insurance Company Limited. However, the conditions of exclusion under the policy document were not explained to the insured and in the absence of the insured being made aware of the terms of exclusion, the insurer could not invoke the same to repudiate the claim. It is further alleged that at the time of insurance of the vehicle the same was inspected by Mr. Yashpal Senior Manager United India Insurance Company Rampura Phul and only thereafter the vehicle was insured by the company. It is further alleged that on 20.04.2021, Shivam Bansal son of the complainant took the said vehicle for going to his Rice Mill at Pakho Kalan and while returning back to home when he was on the way from Pakho Kalan to Barnala and reached within the revenue limits of Village Dhaula, Near Sanawar International School Mansa - Barnala Road Barnala then at about 7:00 PM, due to heavy rain and night vision, suddenly one dog came in front of the car, Shivam Bansal tried his best to save the life of the animal as a result of which the said vehicle slipped from the road and struck with the trees situated/standing on the sides of the road and the vehicle was badly damaged. It is alleged that the son of the complainant immediately telephonically informed his parents and Mr Yashpal Senior Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited on his mobile number 99140-57799 about the incident, who told the son of the complainant that due to heavy rain, it was not possible for him to inspect the vehicle in question immediately but he assured that he will depute some surveyor for inspection of the vehicle in question tomorrow in the morning time. It is further alleged that Shivam Bansal thereafter by arranging another vehicle returned back to his house by leaving the said vehicle at the spot and on the next day i.e. on 21st April 2021 Mr Gurjinder Singh (having mobile number 98140-82783) surveyor of United India Insurance Company Limited called Shivam Bansal and asked him to reach at the spot and inspected the vehicle in question and got clicked the photographs of the vehicle and also obtained the relevant copies of the documents from Shivam Bansal and also obtained the signatures of Shivam Bansal on some papers to fulfill the legal formalities. It is further alleged that as per the instructions of above said Mr Yashpal Senior Manager and Mr Gurjinder Singh surveyor of opposite parties the said vehicle was shifted to the premises of Deep Honda Agency Bathinda for its repair and the Shivam Bansal got his vehicle repaired from Deep Honda Agency Bathinda according to the instructions of above said Gurjinder Singh. Thereafter, Mr Rakesh Gupta was appointed as Surveyor by the concerned officials of the United India Insurance Company for assessing the loss of the vehicle and for collecting the relevant documents, who make visit in the premises of Deep Honda Agency Bathinda and upon his instructions a Temporary Estimate Bill of repair was prepared by the officials of Deep Honda Agency Bathinda, which was amounting to Rs 4,98,228/-, which was taken by above said Mr Rakesh Gupta from the Agency. It is further alleged that as per the instructions of above said Mr Rakesh Gupta Surveyor repaired the said vehicle and claimed an amount of Rs 3,88,347/- only as repair charges vide Invoice Number SR16521-1085 dated 31.05.2021. Thereafter, Shivam Bansal immediately telephonically talked with Mr Yashpal Senior Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited who further directed to Shivam Bansal to pay the said amount from his pocket and assured that later on in due course the said amount would be reimbursed in the account of complainant as the vehicle was duly insured with them. It is further alleged that Mr Yashpal Senior Manager of United India Insurance Company issued a letter to complainant vide office code number 200404 dated 12.7.2021 requiring the complainant to submit some documents, which were required for making the payment only. Thereafter, Mr Yashpal Senior Manager United India Insurance Company sent an email dated 23.08.2021 to complainant requiring the complainant to clarify the specifications of claim in question regarding the tyre size, which was replied by the complainant through his son Shivam Bansal vide email dated 01.09.2021 by specifically explaining the said fact therein. However, thereafter no email notice, letter or reply has ever been received by the complainant from the side of opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant and his son Shivam Bansal was shocked to see the letter bearing Reference No 2004043121C050023001 dated 22.9.2021 issued by opposite party No. 2 according to which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the company due to the reason that “The accident car was equipped with tyre size 185/65/R15 make Apollo with non OE Alloy Wheels, whereas the original equipped tyre size is 175/65/R15”. It is further alleged that earlier to the present complaint the complainant had also lodged the claim regarding the loss caused to the vehicle which had already been paid by the opposite parties to complainant and at that time the vehicle in question equipped the same size of tyres which could be verified from the record/photographs clicked out by the then surveyor. So, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,88,347/- as repair charges of the car alongwith interest till realization.
- To pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the manufacturer as well as the provisions of Section 52 of the M. V. Act and the complainant exchange the wheels of her car from tyre size of 175/65 R/15 to 185/65R/15 Apollo. It is further alleged that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant concealed the material facts etc.
4. On merits, it is admitted only to the extent that the complainant purchased insurance policy from OP No. 2 and the said vehicle was insured from 19.08.2020 to 18.08.2021 as per the specification mentioned in the policy which was issued in favour of the complainant by the OP No. 2. It is further alleged that the complainant herself change the wheels of the car without getting the prior permission from the office of RTO/ DTO or necessary information given to the OP No. 2. It is submitted that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the manufacturer as well as the provisions of Section 52 of the M. V. Act and the complainant exchange the wheels of her car from tyre size of 175/65 R 15 to 185/65R /15 Apollo. It is further alleged that Investigation Officer, who inspected the spot, in the presence of Shivam Bansal and it was found that the complainant and her family members violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and change the wheel of the vehicle in question without any information or necessary permission from RTO/DTO. It is submitted that the complainant's son Shivam Bansal himself got his vehicle repaired from alleged Deep Honda Agency, Bathinda. It is admitted only to the extent that Mr. Rakesh Gupta was appointed as surveyor and he accessed the net loss of the Car of Rs. 3,79,525/- instead of 4,98,228/- as alleged in the complaint, after deduction of salvage value and as per the reports of the different surveyors the opposite parties appointed Mr. Parduman Kumar Sharma as surveyor to get the clarification on specifications of tyres/equipped/recommended by the manufacturer of Honda City 1.5 VX (0) MT-1-V Tec Car, and he has personally get the report from General Manager, Works, Mr. R. Singh, who in his report has confirmed that the afore said variant of Honda City 1.5 VX (0) MT-1-V Tec Car, is equipped/fitted with tyre size of 175/65 R15 specification and the same is recommended by the manufacturer. However, at the time of alleged accident insured car was equipped with tyre size of 185/65R15 (Apollo) and in this way insured has violated the terms and conditions of the manufacturer as well as has violated the provisions of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act and terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant filed detailed rejoinder to the written version filed by opposite parties vide which the complainant denied the averments as motioned in the version and repeated his complaint.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence copy of RC as Ex.C-1, copy of Driving Licence of Shivam Bansal as Ex.C-2, copy of policy as Ex.C-3, copy of Adhaar Card of Abhilasha Rani as Ex.C-4, copy of Adhaar Card of Shivam Bansal as Ex.C-5, copy of PAN Card of Shivam Bansal as Ex.C-6, copy of intimation letter dated 21.04.2021 as Ex.C-7, copy of final bill dated 31.05.2021 as Ex.C-8 (containing 8 pages), copy of letter dated 12.07.2021 as Ex.C-9, copy of Email as Ex.C-10 (containing 2 pages), repudiation letter as Ex.C-11, photographs are Ex.C-12 to C-19, copy of earlier claim approved by Insurance company as Ex.C-20, copy of statement of account as Ex.C- 21, copy of letter dated 07.10.2021 as Ex.C-22, copy of affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-23, affidavit of Shivam Bansal as Ex.C-24 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of Claim Note as Ex.OPs-1 (containing 2 pages), copy of survey report as Ex.OPs-2 (containing 8 pages), copy of letter dated 13.08.2021 as Ex.Ops-3, copy of E mail as Ex.OPs-4 (containing 2 pages), copy of letter dated 22.09.2021 as Ex.OPs-5, copy of legal notice dated 18.09.2021 as Ex.OPS-6 (containing 2 pages), copy of legal opinion dated 15.09.2021 as Ex.OPs-7 (containing 3 pages), copy of certificate 64 VB as Ex.OPs-8, copy of insurance policy as Ex.OPs-9 and affidavit of Baldev Singh Ex.O.Ps-10 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties.
9. It is admitted case of the opposite parties that the complainant purchased insurance policy from opposite party No. 2 and the said vehicle was insured from 19.08.2020 to 18.08.2021 as per the specification mentioned in the policy which was issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party No. 2. It is also admitted case of the opposite parties that Mr. Rakesh Gupta was appointed as surveyor and he accessed the net loss of the Car of Rs. 3,79,525/- instead of 4,98,228/- as alleged in the complaint, after deduction of salvage value.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner of Honda City MT Diesel, Model 2016 bearing registration No. PB-19-P-2484 (Ex.C-1). It is further argued that the complainant got insured her vehicle from opposite party No. 2 under Depreciation without Excess relating to the period starts from 19.08.2020 to 18.08.2021 and paid an amount of Rs 16,195/- as premium for the same to United India Insurance Company Limited (Ex.C-2). It is further argued that the conditions of exclusion under the policy document were not explained to the insured and in the absence of the insured being made aware of the terms of exclusion the insurer could not invoke the same to repudiate the claim. It is further argued that at the time of insurance of the vehicle the same was inspected by Mr. Yashpal Senior Manager United India Insurance Company Rampura Phul and only thereafter the vehicle was insured by the company. It is further argued that on 20.04.2021, Shivam Bansal son of the complainant took the said vehicle for going to his Rice Mill at Pakho Kalan and while returning back to home when he was on the way from Pakho Kalan to Barnala and reached within the revenue limits of Village Dhaula, Near Sanawar International School Mansa - Barnala Road Barnala then at about 7:00 PM, due to heavy rain and night vision, suddenly one dog came in front of the car, Shivam Bansal tried his best to save the life of the animal as a result of which the said vehicle slipped from the road and struck with the trees situated/standing on the sides of the road and the vehicle was badly damaged. It is argued that the son of the complainant immediately telephonically informed his parents and Mr Yashpal Senior Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited, who told that due to heavy rain, it was not possible for him to inspect the vehicle in question immediately but he assured that he will depute some surveyor for inspection of the vehicle in question tomorrow in the morning time. It is further argued that Shivam Bansal thereafter by arranging another vehicle returned back to his house by leaving the said vehicle at the spot and on the next day i.e. on 21st April 2021 Mr Gurjinder Singh surveyor of United India Insurance Company Limited called Shivam Bansal and asked him to reach at the spot and inspected the vehicle in question and got clicked the photographs of the vehicle and also obtained the relevant copies of the documents from Shivam Bansal and also obtained the signatures of Shivam Bansal on some papers to fulfill the legal formalities. It is further argued that as per the instructions of above said Mr Yashpal Senior Manager and Mr Gurjinder Singh surveyor of opposite parties the said vehicle was shifted to the premises of Deep Honda Agency Bathinda for its repair and the Shivam Bansal got his vehicle repaired from Deep Honda Agency Bathinda. It is further argued that Mr Rakesh Gupta was appointed as Surveyor by the concerned officials of the United India Insurance Company for assessing the loss of the vehicle and for collecting the relevant documents, who made visit in the premises of Deep Honda Agency Bathinda and upon his instructions a Temporary Estimate Bill of repair was prepared by the officials of Deep Honda Agency Bathinda, which was amounting to Rs 4,98,228/- and as per the instructions of above said Mr Rakesh Gupta Surveyor repaired the said vehicle and claimed an amount of Rs 3,88,347/- only as repair charges vide Invoice Number SR16521-1085 dated 31.05.2021. It is further argued that Shivam Bansal immediately telephonically talked with Mr Yashpal Senior Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited who further directed to Shivam Bansal to pay the said amount from his pocket and assured that later on in due course the said amount would be reimbursed in the account of complainant. It is further argued that Mr Yashpal Senior Manager of United India Insurance Company issued a letter to complainant dated 12.7.2021 requiring the complainant to submit some documents, which were required for making the payment only and he also sent an email dated 23.08.2021 to complainant requiring the complainant to clarify the specifications of claim in question regarding the tyre size, which was replied by the complainant through his son Shivam Bansal vide email dated 01.09.2021 by specifically explaining the said fact therein, however thereafter no email notice, letter or reply has ever been received by the complainant from the side of opposite parties. It is further argued that the complainant and his son Shivam Bansal was shocked to see the letter dated 22.9.2021 Ex.C-11 issued by opposite party No. 2 according to which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the company due to the reason that “The accident car was equipped with tyre size 185/65/R15 make Apollo with non OE Alloy Wheels, whereas the original equipped tyre size is 175/65/R15”. It is further argued that earlier to the present complaint the complainant had also lodged the claim regarding the loss caused to the vehicle which had already been paid by the opposite parties to complainant and at that time the vehicle in question equipped the same size of tyres which could be verified from the record/photographs clicked out by the then surveyor.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the manufacturer as well as the provisions of Section 52 of the M. V. Act and the complainant exchange the wheels of her car from tyre size of 175/65 R/15 to 185/65R/15 Apollo. It is further argued that the complainant herself change the wheels of the car without getting the prior permission from the office of RTO/ DTO or necessary information given to the OP No. 2. It is further argued that the complainant's son Shivam Bansal himself got his vehicle repaired from alleged Deep Honda Agency, Bathinda. It is further argued that the opposite parties appointed Mr. Parduman Kumar Sharma as surveyor to get the clarification on specifications of tyres/equipped/recommended by the manufacturer of Honda City 1.5 VX (0) MT-1-V Tec Car, and he has personally get the report from General Manager, Works, Mr. R. Singh, who in his report has confirmed that the afore said variant of Honda City 1.5 VX (0) MT-1-V Tec Car, is equipped/fitted with tyre size of 175/65 R15 specification and the same is recommended by the manufacturer.
12. In the present case the point in controversy is that weather the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the manufacturer as well as the provisions of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act because the complainant exchange the wheels of her car from tyre size of 175/65R/15 to 185/65R/15 Apollo or not.
13. We have gone through letter dated 22.9.2021 Ex.C-11 issued by opposite party No. 2 according to which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the company due to the reason that “the accident car was equipped with tyre size 185/65/R15 make Apollo with non OE Alloy Wheels, whereas the original equipped tyre size is 175/65/R15”. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the above said accident took place due to the alteration made by the complainant by changing the tyre size from 175/65R/15 to 185/65R/15 Apollo and to prove their case the opposite parties have placed on record copy of letter dated 13.8.2021 Ex.O.Ps-3 of Mr. Parduman K Sharma Investigator vide which he mentioned that “I contacted General Manager, Works, Mr. R. Singh, who in his report has confirmed that the afore said variant of Honda City 1.5 VX (0) MT-1-V Tec Car, is equipped/fitted with tyre size of 175/65 R15 specification and the same is recommended by the manufacturer”. However, in the above said report it is not mentioned that the complainant has made alteration by changing the tyre size from 175/65R/15 to 185/65R/15 Apollo. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the above said tyres were fitted in the car since long time. It is further argued that by changing the tyre size from 175/65R/15 to 185/65R/15 is not an alteration as described in Section 52 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 because by changing the tyre size from 175/65R/15 to 185/65R/15 is not change the structure of the vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.
14. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further placed on record judgment of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in First Appeal No. 309 of 2016 decided on 28.2.2017 in case titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Amir Khan vide which the Hob’ble State Commission held that “Contention of insurance company that there is material alternation in motorcycle and insurance company has repudiated claim in accordance with law. Contention rejected. As per Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, alteration in motor vehicle would be deemed only when there is alteration in Engine or Chasis Numbers. No evidence to prove that complainant made alteration in motorcycle relating to engine and chassis numbers”.
15. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013 in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs HILLI Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. decided on 4 March, 2020. But Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para No. 32 of the above judgment that “such particulars cannot be altered which have been specified by the manufacturer for the purpose of entry in the certificate of registration”. In the present case the complainant has not altered anything which have been entered in the certificate of registration, so the same is not applicable in the present case. Moreover, the opposite parties have failed to produce any cogent evidence that the complainant changed the tyres after getting the insurance policy. It is the duty of the opposite parties to inspect the vehicle while issuing the insurance policy.
16. In view of the above mentioned facts and law laid down in the above said judgments, we are of the view that contention of opposite parties are not right that by changing the tyre size of the vehicle in question is alteration as defined under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act. By changing one number of bigger size of tyre is not covered under alteration as defined. So we are of the view that the opposite parties have closed the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.9.2021 Ex.C-11 on unreasonable and unjustified grounds. Therefore, by not paying the claim of the complainant there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
17. The complainant to prove her case has placed on record Tax Invoice of Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Ex.C-8 which shows that an amount of Rs. 3,88,347/- has been spent by the complainant on the repair of vehicle in question. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on record the copy of Motor (Final) Survey Report of Er. Rakesh Gupta Ex.O.Ps-2 vide which the Surveyor has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 3,83,525.44/-.
18. So, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,83,525.44/- (as per surveyor report Ex.O.Ps-2) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its actual realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
2nd Day of September, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
