Punjab

Sangrur

CC/153/2018

All India Pingalwara Charitable Society - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Ratol

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                    Complaint no. 153                                                                                                  

                                                                   Instituted on:  02.04.2018                                                                                    

                                                                 Decided on:    19.12.2018

 

 

All India Pingalwara Charitable Society (Regd.) Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Secretary Harjit Singh Arora.             

                                                …. Complainant   

 

                                Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Railway Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                  ….Opposite party.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT  :         Shri S.S.Ratol Advocate                        

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY         :  Shri Ashish Garg Advocate                         

 

Quorum

                            

Inderjeet Kaur,   Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER: InderjeetKaur/Vinod Kumar Gulati,Members

 

1.             Harjit Singh Arora, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that complainant got insured Scorpio no.PB-13-PL-8482 vide policy number 1117003 from the OP  for a period from 13.06.2017 to 12.06.2018  by depositing premium. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.08.2017in which it was badly damaged. An intimation regarding the accident was given to the OP.  The spot survey was conducted by surveyor  of OP namely Jatinder Kalra and vehicle was shifted to Raj Vehicles Pvt. Limited Sangrur  who prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.60848/-  but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 11.10.2017. The complainant never used this vehicle for the purpose of conditions as alleged in the repudiation letter.  The alleged terms and conditions  of the policy were never supplied to the complainant.  The vehicle was also used for the purpose of needy people i.e. for children or the patients, vehicle was never used for any commercial activity. The complainant is not aware nor ever disclosed by the representative of the insurance company that the insurance of any other type is required for this vehicle.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

i)      OP be directed to pay Rs.60848/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.22,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,

iii)            OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, at the time of risk the said vehicle was insured with OP for private purposes only subject to terms and conditions of the policy and sum insured was Rs.5,40,000/- only. It is further stated that the policy as well as its terms and conditions  were immediately supplied to the insured. The said vehicle involved in an accident and company appointed  Er. Jatinder Kalra surveyor and loss Assessor to assess the final loss. The said surveyor assessed Rs.47,458.82/- as gross loss and Rs.45,458.82 as net loss after deducting Rs.2000/- regarding excess clause.  The surveyor also assessed Rs.200/- as salvage value of the damage parts. The surveyor rightly disallowed push pin black theme and registration plate lamp being not damaged in the accident. The vehicle was damaged from the left side, but the above said parts are fitted on the front side, therefore the same were not assessed being not damaged in accident.  The surveyor also disallowed Rs.390.65/- of consumables being not covered under the policy and submitted his report dated 11.09.2017 subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  The  The vehicle in question is registered as light goods vehicle ( LGV) but the complainant get insured the same for private purposes by concealing the material facts and thus had breached the provisions of Motor Vehicle  Act. The OP has legally and rightly repudiated the complaint of the complainant as the insured had breached the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as well as terms and conditions of policy ( intimation as to use as per condition no.B) and informed  the complainant through registered letter dated 17.10.2017. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 and closed evidence.

4.                It is not in dispute that the complainant got the insurance policy from 13.06.2017 to 12.06.2018 from OP as Private Car-Package Policy , nor is it in dispute that the accident took place during the subsistence of the policy. The policy was therefore valid on the date of accident. It is disputed by the insurance company that the vehicle in question is registered as Light Goods Vehicle, but  the complainant get insured the same for Private Purposes by concealing the material facts and thus had breached the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and as well as terms and conditions of the policy ( Limitation as to use as per condition No.B).  The OP has renewed the policy after examining the previous policy which was also issued for private purposes. It was the duty of the complainant to disclose the Policy issuing office that the vehicle in question is registered as commercial vehicle, but he did not disclose the same and intentionally  get the insurance policy for private purposes only. But on the contrary, we find that it was the duty of the OP or its agent to verify the purpose of plying of the vehicle mentioned in the Registration Certificate before providing insurance cover to the complainant and the complainant cannot  be blamed for the lapse on the part of the insurer. Further, once the insurance cover is provided by the insurance company it cannot escape its responsibility to pay the just claim in case of accident of the insured vehicle.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted number of citations of Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . We have gone through these citations and have found that the ratio of the citations given are not straight away applicable to the case on hand.  

6.                Keeping in view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.45458.82/- to the complainant as  assessed by the surveyor in its report dated 11.09.2017 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date on which the payment is made. We further order the OP to pay  a compensation of Rs.2000/-  and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.   

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. File be consigned to records in due course.  

 

                Announced.

                                        December19,2018

 

                              ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (  Inderjeet Kaur)                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Member                            Presiding Member