Haryana

Karnal

126/2012

Ram Dhari S/o Late Shish Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Khokhar

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 126 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.  29.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision:19.09.2016

 

Ram Dhari son of late Shish Ram, resident of village & P.O. Kutail, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager, near Bus Stand, opposite Rama Hotel G.T. Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Sandeep Khakhar  Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for opposite party.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he got insured his jeep bearing registration no.HR-45-A-4521 with the opposite party. On 25.10.2009, his son Vinod Kumar was going from village Ranwar to the Dera of Sacha Sauda at Sirsa in the said jeep alongwith some other persons. The said jeep met with an accident with a truck bearing registration no.HR-57-1233 in the area of village Moriwala. First Information Report no.135 dated 25.10.2009 was registered in Police Station Ding regarding the said accident. He gave intimation of the accident and damage of the jeep to the opposite party and submitted all necessary papers. The opposite party appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss and submitted report. An amount of Rs.1,08,907/- was pad to P.P. Automotive, Karnal for repairing of the said jeep and claim was submitted with the opposite party. Initially, the opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Lateron, vide letter dated 18.03.2010, the claim was repudiated illegally. Repudiation of the claim amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised that the complainant has no cause of action; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complaint is not maintainable.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45-A-4521 was registered as goods carrying vehicle, but at the time of accident, the same was carrying 10 passengers. Therefore, opposite party was not liable to pay the claim as per general exception no.3(A) of the policy and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 18.03.2010. However, it has been admitted that Ravi Kumar Gupta was appointed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed the loss and submitted report dated 13.12.2009.The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of S.S.Vasudeva Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.O1 to O7 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The parties are not at dispute regarding the facts that the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45-A-4521 of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the same met with an accident on 25.10.2009 during subsistence of the policy. Intimation was given to the opposite party and surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss and submitted report. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the sole ground that vehicle was registered as goods carrying vehicle, but at the time of accident the same was carrying 10 passengers, which was violation of condition no.3 (A) of the policy.

7.                The copy of the Registration Certificate of vehicle no.HR-45-A-4521 Ex.O3 shows that the said vehicle was registered as light commercial vehicle and as goods carrier. The copy of the First Information Report Ex.O7 indicates that the vehicle was being driven by Vinod Kumar the son of the complainant at the time of accident and at that time 14 other persons were also travelling in the same as passengers. As per Registration Certificate the seating capacity of the vehicle was of two persons including driver. Thus, it stands established that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers though it was registered as goods carrying vehicle. Consequently, the vehicle was being used in violation of the condition of the policy regarding ‘Limitation as to use’ of the vehicle.

8.                In Amalendu Shaoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ii (2010) CTJ 485= 2010 CPJ 9 (SC) the claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that vehicle was being driven on hire, whereas according to the policy terms, such  use was not permitted and the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation  for such unauthorized use. Under those circumstances considering the guidelines issued by the Insurance Company it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. Direction was issued to insurance company to pay consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- . In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Deen Dayal,  IV(2009) CPJ 218  the vehicle meant for carrying goods was carrying  passengers at the time of accident. Keeping in view the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation, the Hon’ble National Commission directed the insurance company to settle the claim on non standard basis and to pay 75% of the loss assessed by the surveyor.

9.                The proposition of law laid down in the aforediscussed authorities is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the opposite party was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant in toto, even in case of violation of condition of policy regarding use of the vehicle. The complainant was justified to get 75% of the loss on non-standard basis.

10.              The opposite party had appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss and submitted report the copy of which is Ex.O6, according to which the net loss on repairs basis was assessed as Rs.1,04,717/- and salvage value as Rs.2500/-. The complainant has also claimed that spent Rs.1,08,907/- on repairs of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, the complainant is held entitled to get 75% of amount of Rs.1,04,717/- as assessed by the surveyor. Non-payment of claim to the complainant on non-standard  basis  amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

11.              As a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make the payment of 75% of Rs.1,04,717/-/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member