Punjab

Sangrur

CC/235/2020

Ashe Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mukesh Garg

06 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No.235

 Instituted on:   10.08.2020

                                                                         Decided on:     06.10.2022

 

 

Ashe Kumar Goyal aged 49 years son of Sh. A R Goyal, Advocate, R/O Prem Basti, Street No.1 Kothi No.3, Sangrur.                        

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. B.O. Outside Dhuri Gate, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                   ….Opposite party 

For the complainant    : Shri Mukesh Garg, Adv.              

For the OP                : Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.                

1.           Complainant has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant  got insured his vehicle/car Mahindra Marazzo bearing registration number CH-01-BV-0327 from the OP vide policy number 404200311810000643 for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 by paying the requisite premium and the OP issued only cover note to the complainant and no terms and conditions were issued.

2.           Further case of complainant is that earlier the complainant was having insured another vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-E-0227 under policy number 4042003115610000252 and with a rider the complainant was given the benefit of 65% of NCB on purchase of new vehicle and the complainant availed the benefit accordingly.  The complainant on 31.12.2018 purchased new vehicle Mahindra Marazzo which was got insured from the OP for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 under policy number 404200311810000643 for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 and the OP gave 65% benefit of NCB to the complainant without any objection and the complainant surrendered all the documents to the OP at the time of insurance of the policy. The grievance of complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident in February, 2019 and as such the vehicle was brought to M/s. Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur for repairs and information of which was also given to the OP and  the OP appointed surveyor to assess the damage to the vehicle. The repairer repaired the vehicle and for that bill to the tune of Rs.42,543/- was issued to the complainant. The OP instead of paying the amount of Rs.42,543/-as claim amount, sent letter dated 3.7.2019 stating that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable as he was not entitled for 65% NCB at that time. Further the OP vide letter dated 8.7.2019 also recovered the NCB amount of Rs.10,703/- from the complainant, but despite that the claim was not paid on the ground that the complainant is not entitled for 65% NCB. The complainant has alleged further that the OP has wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to release the claim amount of Rs.42,543/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3.           Upon being served, OP appeared and filed written response wherein it has been admitted that the vehicle in question bearing registration number CH-01-BV-0327 was insured with the OP subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is admitted that the complainant was enjoying 65% NCB against his previous policy from 16.4.2015 to 15.4.2016 for vehicle number PB-13-E-0227. Later on complainant insured his above said car for liability only w.e.f. 9.12.2016 to 8.12.2017, therefore, NCB lapsed after expiry of 90 days of the previous policy. It is stated further that the insured can take the benefit of NCB in case he informs the  company for protecting the NCB before  the expiry of the old policy after surrendering the old vehicle certificate of insurance, but the complainant did not surrender the old policy before its expiry, therefore, he was not entitled NCB to the extent of 65%. The accident of the vehicle in question is admitted and further deputing of surveyor by the OP is also admitted. It is admitted further that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.41,095/- and after deducting access clause, the claim payable was to the tune of Rs.40096/- only. It is admitted that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.10,703/- regarding NCB. However, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OP as the complainant was not entitled to get the benefit of 65% of NCB. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.           The  complainant produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-13 affidavit and Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 are copies of documents and closed evidence.

5.           The learned counsel for complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant  got insured his vehicle/car Mahindra Marazzo bearing registration number CH-01-BV-0327 from the OP vide policy number 404200311810000643 for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 by paying the requisite premium and the OP issued only cover note to the complainant and no terms and conditions were issued.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant was having insured another vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-E-0227 under policy number 4042003115610000252 and with a rider the complainant was given the benefit of 65% of NCB on purchase of new vehicle and the complainant availed the benefit accordingly as on 31.12.2018 he purchased a new vehicle Mahindra Marazzo which was got insured from the OP for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 under policy number 404200311810000643 for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019 and OP gave 65% benefit of NCB to the complainant without any objection and the complainant surrendered all the documents to the OP at the time of insurance of the policy. The grievance of complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident in February, 2019 and as such the vehicle was brought to M/s. Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur for repairs and information of which was also given to the OP and the OP appointed surveyor to assess the damage to the vehicle. The repairer repaired the vehicle and for that bill to the tune of Rs.42,543/- was issued to the complainant. The OP instead of paying the amount of Rs.42,543/-as claim amount, sent letter dated 3.7.2019 stating that the claim of  complainant is not maintainable as he was not entitled for 65% NCB at that time. Further the OP vide letter dated 8.7.2019 also recovered the NCB amount of Rs.10,703/- from the complainant, but despite that the claim was not paid on the ground that the complainant is not entitled for 65% NCB, which is said to be illegal one.

6.           The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the vehicle in question bearing registration number CH-01-BV-0327 was insured with the OP subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and admitted that the complainant was enjoying 65% NCB against his previous policy from 16.4.2015 to 15.4.2016 for vehicle number PB-13-E-0227. Later on complainant insured his above said car for liability only w.e.f. 9.12.2016 to 8.12.2017, therefore, NCB lapsed after expiry of 90 days of the previous policy. It is contended  further that the insured can take the benefit of NCB in case he informs the  company for protecting the NCB before  the expiry of the old policy after surrendering the old vehicle certificate of insurance, but the complainant did not surrender the old policy before its expiry, therefore, he was not entitled NCB to the extent of 65%. It is further argued that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.41,095/- and after deducting access clause, the claim payable was to the tune of Rs.40,096/- only, but the same was not paid as per policy terms and conditions. It is admitted that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.10,703/- regarding NCB. However, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OP as the complainant was not entitled to get the benefit of 65% of NCB.

7.           After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the insurance of the vehicle in question is not in dispute nor it is in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident and suffered loss, as is evident from the copies of the bills issued by M/s. Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., which are on record as Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7.  In the present case it is an admitted fact that NCB of 65% was allowed to the complainant at the time of insurance of the new vehicle i.e. Mahindra Marazzo as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2 which is for the period from 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2019, but when the claim arose to the vehicle of the complainant, then the OP awake up and stated that 65% NCB allowed to the complainant was not permissible.  We have also perused the copy of NCB Ex.C-4 issued by the OP, wherein it has been stated that 65% NCB is available to the vehicle having registration number PB-13-E-0227 and it is further stated in the document Ex.C-4 “in the event of sale of this vehicle by the insured, the NCB will be available within a 3 years from the date of expiry of the policy mentioned above”. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it does not seem to be fair in the mouth of the OP to say that 65% NCB was not permissible/available at the time of insurance of the new vehicle.  If the same was not permissible then why the officials of the OP allowed 65% of NCB to the complainant and moreover the amount of Rs.10703/- was recovered from the complainant on 22.7.2019 vide cheque number 652806 on account of NCB recovery.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is not only deficient but also is negligent in not settling the rightful claim of the complainant.    

8.           Now coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  Ex.OP/5 is the copy of the survey report of Er. Rajesh Goyal which is dated 11.4.2019 and perusal of it clearly reveals that net assessed loss payable to the complainant is to the tune of Rs.40,096/- only which amount was not paid by the OP to the complainant on the ground that 65% of NCB was wrongly granted to the complainant at the time of insurance of the vehicle, but we are unable to accept such a contention as discussed above and find that the OP is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,0096/-.

9.           As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,096/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization in full. The Op is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of  copy of this order.

10.          The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.          Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.       

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 6, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                          President