Haryana

Kaithal

103/21

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.B.R Saini

07 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 103 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:      07.04.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       07.05.2024.

 

Mandeep Singh s/o Shri Paramraj Singh, r/o H.No.440, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office: Karnal Road, Opposite I.G. College, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.       

...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Satish Garg, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri N.S. Berwal, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

          Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he insured Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No.HR-64A-8293 vide policy bearing No.12010031200160000852 for the period from 21.03.2020 to 20.03.2021 after paying Rs.19802/- as premium. That on 01.07.2020, the said vehicle met with a road side accident near village Hardaspura, District Patiala, Punjab and badly damaged. That in this regard, one FIR No.110 dated 03.07.2020 u/s 279,337,427 IPC was lodged in PS Anaj Mandi, Patiala. That he duly informed the OP in this regard and surveyor of OP visited the spot and assessed the damaged to the vehicle. That Jai Maa Motors, Kaithal has assessed the total loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.6,09,596/-. That he submitted all the requisite documents with the OP for the claim amount, but OP wrongly repudiated the same vide letter dated 03.03.2021, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of OP, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OP, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, stating therein that the complainant sold the vehicle in question to Ram Bhagat s/o Shri Ram Singh on 23.12.2016, but the RC of the vehicle was not transferred within time limit condition of insurance policy and it was also financed by M/s M&M Fin. Service Ltd. That the monthly installments of the vehicle along with salary of driver are being paid by Bhagat Ram. That the said vehicle was also got released on Superdari by said Ram Bhagat from the Court, so the vehicle in question was in the possession and control of said Ram Bhagat. That the story put forth by the complainant that the vehicle in question was given on lease to Ram Bhagat is totally wrong and afterthought. That in the power of attorney given by complainant to Ram Bhagat, it is clearly mentioned that complainant has nothing to do with the said vehicle and nothing is mentioned about giving the vehicle on lease to Ram Bhagat or any amount of lease and period of lease which is necessary for the lease.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C14.

5.                On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to R-8.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant insured Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No.HR-64A-8293 for the period from 21.03.2020 to 20.03.2021 from the OP. He further argued that on 01.07.2020, the said vehicle met with a road side accident near village Hardaspura, District Patiala, Punjab and badly damaged and in this regard, one FIR No.110 dated 03.07.2020 was lodged in PS Anaj Mandi, Patiala. He further argued that the complainant duly informed the OP, in this regard and surveyor of OP visited the spot and assessed the damaged to the vehicle. He further argued that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OP for the claim amount, but OP wrongly repudiated the same vide letter dated 03.03.2021, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of OP.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant sold the vehicle in question to Ram Bhagat s/o Shri Ram Singh on 23.12.2016, but the RC of the vehicle was not transferred within time limit condition of insurance policy and it was also financed by M/s M&M Fin. Service Ltd. He further argued that the monthly installments of the vehicle along with salary of driver are being paid by Bhagat Ram. He further argued that the story put forth by the complainant that the vehicle in question was given on lease to Ram Bhagat is totally wrong and afterthought. He further argued that in the power of attorney given by complainant to Ram Bhagat, it is clearly mentioned that complainant has nothing to do with the said vehicle and nothing is mentioned about giving the vehicle on lease to Ram Bhagat or any amount of lease and period of lease which is necessary for the lease. He further argued that due to typographical mistake and oversight, in Par No.5 of written statement, it has wrongly been mentioned that “amount of Rs.87,900/- has been paid to the complainant”, rather, nothing has been paid till today to the complainant against the claim in question.

9.                Admittedly, complainant is the owner of vehicle in question Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No.HR-64A-8293 vide Annexure C-2, which was insured with the OP w.e.f. 21.03.2020 to 20.03.2021 with IDV of Rs.3,85,000/- vide policy document Annexure C-13. On 01.07.2020, the said vehicle met with a road side accident and in this regard, one FIR bearing No.0110 dated 03.07.2020 was lodged in PS Anaj Mandi, Patiala Annexure C-8. The said vehicle was damaged in that accident and M/s Jai Maa Motors, Kaithal has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,09,596/- Annexure C-7. In this regard, the complainant intimated to the OP, who deputed Deepankur Soni, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who submitted its report dated 21.09.2020 Annexure R-8. The OP also deputed Shri R.N. Sharma, approved Investigator, who submitted his report dated 05.09.2020 Annexure R-6. The complainant also lodged his claim with the OP, who repudiated the same vide its letter dated 03.03.2021 Annexure C-1.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that the OP wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant, on false grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of OP, hence, OP be directed to pay the claim amount, to the complainant.

11.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OP has firstly contended that as per Investigator report, it was revealed that the complainant has sold the said vehicle to Shri Ram Bhagat s/o Shri Ram Singh on 23.12.2016 and RC of vehicle has not been transferred within time limit condition of insurance policy. In this regard, learned counsel for the OP has drawn attention of this Commission towards Special Power of Attorney Annexure C-10. This Commission has perused the said Special Power of Attorney Annexure C-10 thoroughly and we found that this Special Power of Attorney was executed by the complainant, in favour of one Ram Bhagat regarding his vehicle i.e. bearing Registration No.HR-64A-8293, whereby, the complainant had given the said vehicle on lease to said Ram Bhagat i.e. to apply for passing, to get duplicate registration, to sign, execute any plaint/application, to get release the RC of said vehicle, to deposit token and permit fees, to receive any cheque, receipt of said vehicle etc. etc., but it is pertinent to mention here that there is nowhere mentioned in that Special Power of Attorney Annexure C-10 that the complainant Mandeep Singh had sold the vehicle in question to said Ram Bhagat and as such, the question of transferring the RC of said vehicle in favour of Ram Bhagat does not arise. Hence, the first objection, taken by the OP, in letter dated 03.03.2021 regarding repudiation of claim of complainant that the complainant had sold the vehicle in question to one Ram Bhagat on 23.12.2016 and its RC has not been transferred within time limit, has no force, hence rejected.  

12.              Learned counsel for the OP has further contended that the complainant has given in written to the OP that he is the owner of vehicle in question which is clear cut case of misrepresentation. However, as stated above, from the Special Power of Attorney Annexure C-10, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not sold the said vehicle to Ram Bhagat, rather the same was given on lease to him by the complainant, due to which, the complainant is still the owner of the vehicle in question. Moreover, the policy in question is still in the name of complainant, due to that, the complainant has rightly claimed him as owner of the vehicle in question. In view of above facts, this contentions of the OP has also no force, hence rejected.

13.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP insurance company has not been able to prove the allegations, on the basis of which, it had repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thus, the repudiation of the claim, done by the OP is held to be unjustified and amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP.

14.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? From the policy document Annexure C-13, it is evident that the IDV of the vehicle in question is Rs.3,85,000/-. The OP deputed one Deepankur Soni, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who submitted its report dated 21.09.2020 Annexure R-8, wherein, he assessed the liabilities on NET OFF SALVAGE BASIS to the tune of Rs.3,14,500/- (3,85,000 (IDV of the vehicle) – 70000 (Less Wreck value with registration certificate). However, it is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor Annexure R-8, is taken into consideration, for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of report of surveyor Annexure R-8, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,14,500/- (On Net of Salvage Basis with Registration Certificate), on account of loss suffered by him, due to damage of his vehicle. However, it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has admitted that at present, the damaged vehicle/wreckage of the vehicle, is in the possession of the complainant and the complainant agrees to keep the same with him, with its Registration Certificate, in Rs.70,000/-, as assessed by the surveyor in his report Annexure R-8.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,14,500/- (On Net of Salvage Basis with Registration Certificate) along with compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant. The OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

16.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.       

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:07.05.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.