Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/15

Smt. Meena Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. S.S.Rattan, Adv.

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  15 of 10.03.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      26.09.2017

 

Smt. Meena Kumari, aged about 53 years, wife of Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of House No.186, Madhav Nagar, Nangal Township, P.S. & Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014, (Tamil Nadu) through its Managing Director/ Chairman 

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Red Cross Bhawan, Sector 1, Naya Nangal, PS & Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar (Punjab) through Divisional Manager.                                                                                                                                              ....Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.S.S. Rattan, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Smt. Meena Kumari through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.74,635.97/- 

ii)      To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him

iii)     To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.           The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-07-AA-6459. She got it insured with the O.P. vide policy No.1109003115P109066706 for the period from 08.11.2015 to 07.11.2016. She was using the said vehicle for her personal as well as for business purpose as she is running a Karyana Store at her residence. On 13.6.2016, the complainant along with her family members/relatives had gone for Devi Darshan in Himachal Pradesh and while coming back from there, all of a sudden, one person came in front of the vehicle, due to which it went out of control and struck against the railing fixed along the road and her vehicle got damaged. FIR No. 101 dated 15.6.2016, was lodged with the Police Station Amb, District Una (HP). She also informed the insurance company and on the instructions of the surveyor, appointed by the O.Ps., she got it repaired for which she spent a sum of Rs.74,635.97/-. Thereafter, she lodged the claim with the O.Ps. along with the requisite document. However, the O.Ps. vide letter dated 15.12.2016 NDO:PKG:VKS:AD:2016 1087 have repudiated her claim on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying nine/ten passengers from Nangal to Chintpurni Mata on hire or reward basis. It is further stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by her husband, who was holding driving license. The police station Amb has furnished challan against Rajinder Kumar i.e. the husband of the complainant before the Hon’ble Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amb, HP. It is wrongly alleged in the repudiation letter that at the time of accident the vehicle was being used for hire or reward, whereas she has never used her vehicle for the said purpose. The traffic police in India never challaned her vehicle, used as Taxi. Her vehicle is being insured for own damage and for the third party and she is legally entitled to get the claim. The act of the O.P. by repudiating her claim is illegal, null & void against the principle of natural justice and equity, arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional. Hence, this complaint.

3.           On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. have filed written version taking preliminary objection; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case. On merits, it is stated that car was insured with it. On 14.6.2016, at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was carrying nine/ten passengers from Nangal to Mata Chintpurni on hire or reward. So there is violation of insurance policy conditions and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by her. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal thereof.

4.                     On being called upon to do so, complainant has tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Nasib Chand, Investigator Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.   

5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.           From the copy of insurance policy Ex-C7, it is evident that the car in question was duly insured with the OPs for the period from 08.11.2015 to 07.11.2016. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that on 13.6.2016, the complainant alongwith her family had gone to Mata Chintpurni to pay obeisance. While coming back from there on 14.06.2016 her duly insured car met with an accident. She lodged the claim with the OPs, but they repudiated her genuine claim. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that after lodging of the claim by the complainant, a surveyor and a investigator was deputed to assess the loss. As per the investigator report, at the time of accident the vehicle was carrying nine to ten passengers and it was being used for Hire or reward. As such, there is violation terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by her and it has rightly repudiated the claim. we have perused the investigator report thoroughly and observed that the said investigator after enquiring from some persons have arrived at a conclusion that the car in question was being used on hire or reward. He has not placed on record the affidavit of any of the person, whose names have been mentioned in the said report. Even he has not recorded the statement of any of the passengers who had hired or reward the vehicle and had paid some amount as fare. Thus no reliance can be placed on the said investigation report, to arrive at a conclusion that at the time of accident vehicle in question was being used for hire or reward purpose. No other cogent and convincing document has placed on record by the OPs to prove that the vehicle of the complainant was being used for hire or reward. In this view of the matter, we do not hesitate the conclude that the O.Ps. have failed to prove that the vehicle in question was being used for hire or reward purpose and as such, the O.Ps. are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him.

                    7.       Now the question which arises for consideration is what should                                  be the quantum of indemnification.

                    From the perusal of surveyor report Ex.C12, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed, the loss to the tune of Rs.33,000/-. It may be stated that surveyor report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to the contrary on record. Therefore, we hold that the O.ps. are liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs.33,000/- for the loss suffered by her. Not only this, the O.Ps. is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. It is also liable to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant.

8.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:-

1.    To pay Rs.33,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 15.12.2016 i.e. the date of repudiation till its realization.

2.   To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant

3.     To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

          The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

          ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

          Dated .26.09.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                           (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                              MEMBER