Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 87.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 22.02.2018.

                                                                    Decided on      : 29.08.2019.

Ms. Meenu age 27 years, d/o Bhagwan Singh resident of House No.2228, VPO Badshapur, Distt. Gurgaon.

                                                                      ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Office at 323/21, Floor no.2, Jawahar Market, near Model Town, D-Park Delhi Rohtak Road, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Ajay Ohlan, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle Hyundai-Verna bearing registration No.HR-26bf-9352 which was insured with the respondent vide policy no.1112003114P100764492, for the period from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2015 insured value of Rs.551000/-. That the alleged vehicle caught fire on 29.09.2014  and suffered total damage. That complainant intimated the opposite party as well as Fire Brigade, Sector-37, Gurgaon well within time about the damage of said vehicle. That complainant lodged his claim with the respondent alongwith all required documents. Complainant repeatedly visited the office of opposite party to get the claim amount but to no effect. That the respondent company issued letter dated 03.10.2017 bearing no. OD claim RM 2017 vide which it has been stated that the claim of the complainant has been treated as No Claim on the ground that there is violation of condition no.4 of the policy. That there is no violation of conditions no.4 of the policy. That complainant requested the opposite party to make the genuine claim of the complainant but to no effect. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.551000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.   

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant has violated the terms and conditions no.4 of the policy. It is the duty of the insured to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage in the event of any accident or break-down. The vehicle should not be left unattended without proper precautions to prevent further damage or loss. In this case, the vehicle caught fire at 1:45P.M whereas  the fire brigade was informed at 03:26PM by Yashpal. That driver Narinder did not inform the fire brigde and also did not inform the police. He gave wrong statement to the investigator. That driver of the vehicle left the vehicle un-attended when the car got fire. Thus there is a violation of policy condition no.4 & 5 and the claim of the complainant is not payable. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 16.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.08.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that complainant has failed to safeguard the vehicle at the time of fire and has violated the terms and condition no.4 of the policy. As per report of Fire Brigade Ex.C2, the fire brigade was informed at 03:25PM regarding the fire in Swift Dzire whereas the vehicle caught fire at 1:45PM and the vehicle was Hyundai Verna instead of Swift Dzire. Hence there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

6.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per report of surveyor Ex.R2, the loss has been assessed as Rs.500000/- but the same has not been paid to the complainant due to violation no.4 & 5 of the policy. In this regard we have relied upon a case law of Hon’ble National Commission referred in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in 2006CTJ(CP)(NCDRC), whereby it has been held that: “In a case of violation of conditions of the policy as to the use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis. In paragraph 13 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in 2008(7) First appeal No.1169 of 2014 Hon’ble Court held that: “The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis and the Hon’ble State Commission allowed 75% of the claim of the claimant on non standard basis. The said order was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission.

7.                          In view of the law referred above, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in case of violation of conditions of the policy, the claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis i.e. 75% of the loss assessed by the surveyor.  As such, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party shall pay 75% of the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. to pay Rs.375000/-(Rupees three lac seventy five thousand only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint  i.e. 22.02.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. 

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

29.08.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.