DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

          Complaint Case No.:1000 of 2009

 Date of Inst:  17.07.2009

                Date of Decision:03.05.2010

Geetu Dass wife of Sh.Sombit Dass r/o House No.2292/1, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

2.   Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Phase-9, Mohali (Pb.).

3.   Dynamic Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

QUORUM       

              SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA         PRESIDENT

              SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.R.S.Sangwan, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Amarpreet Singh, Adv. for OPs NO.1 and 2

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for OP-3

                            ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Smt.Geetu Dass  has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein  OPs No.1 and 2 be directed to-

i)              Pay Rs.1,60,501/- as repair charges to OP No.3

ii)         Pay the compensation for mental agony and harassment besides others losses suffered along with interest @ 12% p.a. on account of non-delivery of the vehicle.

iii)    Pay litigation expenses.

iv)         OP-3 be directed to release the vehicle. 

2.        In brief the case of the complainant is that she got insured her vehicle (Chevrolet Tavera) bearing No.CH-04-6724 with OPs vide insurance policy No.112100/31/07/00002297 against the premium of Rs.25,584/-. The said insurance policy was valid from 26.06.2007 to 25.06.2008 (midnight) for a sum assured of Rs.7,53,350/-. According to the complainant, the said vehicle met with an accident on 02.12.2007, 19.01.2008 and thereafter on 04.04.2008. The complainant got repaired the car from Dynamic Motors (OP-3). The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the OPs and requested them to release the claim but to no effect. It has been averred by the complainant that OP-3 repaired the vehicle and raised the bill dated 30.08.2008  for Rs.1,60,501/-.

          According to the complainant, she purchased the vehicle by raising loan from the ICICI Bank which is to be repaid in installment of Rs.18,462/- each. She is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs.1,60,501/- raised by OP-3.  So, the complainant requested OPs No.1 and 2 a number of times to release the claim to OP-3 so that she could get the possession of the vehicle and earn her livelihood, but to no effect. The complainant served a legal notice dated  27.01.2009 upon Insurance Company but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured for a declared insured sum of Rs.7,53,350/- under insurance policy which was valid from 26.06.2007 to 25.06.2008 (midnight).  It has been pleaded that the vehicle was insured as private vehicle but the same was being used as a taxi against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the claim is not payable. It has been pleaded that the surveyor –Sh.Jaspreet Singh assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.96,635/-. It has further been pleaded that as per the report of investigator and copy of the DDR, the vehicle was being used as a taxi whereas it was insured for private use. Thus, the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 27.01.2009 (Annexure R-5). In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.        In its separate written statement, OP-3 submitted that the vehicle of the complainant has been repaired  and the complainant was requested to take the delivery of the vehicle after payment of Rs.1,07,501/- which she  failed to so. All other averments in the complaint are denied for want of knowledge. According to OP No.3, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

6.        Annexure R-1 is the copy of the insurance policy. From the bare perusal of the same, it is apparent that the car was insured as a private vehicle and not as a taxi. In para No.5 of the complaint, the complainant has herself averred that the car was being plied as a taxi for the purpose of earning her livelihood.  From the report dated 26.09.2008 of investigator (Annexure R-4),it is apparent that  during the investigation, it was also found that the car was being used as a taxi. So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that the car was not being used as a taxi and the report of the surveyor is not based on proper evidence cannot be accepted.

          As mentioned above, it is the case of the complainant herself that the car was used as a taxi. Thus, from the material on record, it has been duly proved that  the car was being used as a taxi despite the fact that it was insured for private use. Thus, the car was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

7.        From the bare perusal of the repudiation letter dated 27.01.2009 (Annexure R-5), it is apparent that the claim of the complainant  has been repudiated on the ground that the car was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  No doubt as mentioned above, the car was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

           However, the claim of the complainant could not be repudiated in toto. The insurance company was required to settle the claim as per the guidelines for settlement of non-standard claims issued by the General Insurance Corporation. In a similar case titled as OIC Vs.s Sanjeev Kumar reported in  II (2009) CPJ-356 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that in cases where the car was being used as taxi despite the fact that it was insured as a private car, the claim should be settled on non-standard basis and the complainant should be given compensation to the extent of 75% of the admissible claim.

8.        In the present case, the as per the report of the surveyor, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.96,635/-.  Thus, the claim of the complainant on the basis of non-standard basis comes to Rs.72,476/-.

9.        In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 to 2 to pay a sum of Rs.72,476/- on the basis of non-standard basis to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. OPs No1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

10.       OP-3 shall deliver the possession of the car to the complainant on receipt of the amount mentioned in the bill.

11.       This order be complied with by the OPs No1. and 2  within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.82,476/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.17.07.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation.

12.       OP-3 shall deliver the possession of the car as soon as he get the amount mentioned in the bill.

13.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03.05.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER