Haryana

Karnal

CC/475/2022

Ranpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manhinder KUmar

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.475 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 16.08.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 16.12.2024

 

Ranpal Singh son of Shri Sahab Singh, VPO Phoosgarh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager Gagan Building, G.T. Road, Karnal.

                                                                   …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Mahinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sudhakar Mittal, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of Motorcycle Bajaj Platena bearing registration no.HR-05AX-4959. The complainant got insured the said motorcycle with the OP, vide policy no.35360131220300000934, for the period from 19.05.2022 to 18.05.2023 and paid Rs.1497/- as premium. On 09.06.2022 at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant went to Karan Vihar Colony, Karnal to purchase some household articles and the motorcycle was standing in front of the shop and Auto which was coming in a rash and negligent manner by its driver struck with the motorcycle of the complainant and the motorcycle of the complainant was damaged. On the same day i.e. 09.06.2022, complainant informed the OP regarding the said incident. The motorcycle was got repaired from Bajaj Agency which is duly authorized by the OP and a bill of amounting to Rs.6311.78 was issued on 17.06.2022 and bill amounting to Rs.1050.93 dated 17.06.2022. The claim of the complainant was registered with the OP, vide claim no.35360131220390000102 but the OP rejected the claim of the complainant, vide order dated 16.07.2022 on the ground that complainant was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident. Whereas complainant was having a driving license no.HR45199990013676 which was issued by RTA Karnal on 03.03.1999 and is valid upto 02.03.2025. The claim of the complainant is rejected in an illegal and arbitrary manner which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to make the payment of Rs.6311.78 +1050.93 actual repair charges alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.22000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on receipt of intimation regarding the alleged incident on 10.06.2022, Shri Yatin Kalra was deputed as surveyor to assess the loss in the vehicle. He submitted his report dated 25.06.2022 by assessing the net liability of the OP to the tune of Rs.7150/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP on the ground that complainant was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the two wheeler in question and was only having the driving license bearing no.HR4519990013676, authorizing him to drive only PSV Bus and Transport vehicle. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of driving licence-1989 Ex.C3, copy of driving licence-2002 Ex.C4, copy of driving licence-2005 Ex.C5, copy of valid driving licence valid upto 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2025 Ex.C6 to Ex.C10, copy of extract of driving licence dated 23.06.2022 Ex.C11, copy of insurance policy Ex.C12, copy of application form Ex.C13, copy of repair bills dated 17.6.2022 and 17.06.2022  Ex.C14 and Ex.C15, copy of repudiation letter dated 16.07.2022 Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on 14.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of R.K. Mittal Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of survey report Ex.OP1, copy of claim form Ex.OP2, copy of accidental estimate Ex.OP3, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP4, copy of registration certificate Ex.OP5, copy of driving licence of complainant Ex.OP6, copy of PAN Card Ex.OP7, copy of aadhar card Ex.OP8, copy of cash receipt dated 17.06.2022 Ex.OP9, copy of tax invoice insurance copy-spares Ex.OP10, copy of driving licence detail Ex.OP11, copies of reminders dated 11.06.2022 and 23.06.2022 Ex.OP12 and Ex.OP13, photographs of vehicle Ex.OP14, copy of claim note Ex.OP15, copy of certificate in respect of compliance of section 64 B of Insurance Act, 1938 Ex.OP16, copy of policy schedule Ex.OP17, copy of claim intimation letter dated 10.06.2022 Ex.OP18, copy of repudiation letter dated 16.07.2022 Ex.OP19, copy of application dated 15.07.2022 Ex.OP20, copy of driving licence of Ranpal Singh complainant Ex.OP21, copy of letter dated 06.07.2022 Ex.OP22 and closed the evidence on 30.07.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his motorcycle with the OP. On 09.06.2022, during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the said motorcycle  met with an accident and damaged badly. Intimation was sent to the OP. The motorcycle was got repaired from Bajaj Agency and complainant spent an amount of Rs.7361/-. Complainant lodged the claim with the OP for disbursement of the said amount but OP did not pay the same and rejected the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 16.07.2022 on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on receipt of claim intimation, a surveyor was appointed by the OP to assess the loss in the vehicle. Surveyor submitted his report dated 25.06.2022 by assessing the net liability of the OP to the tune of Rs.7150/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP on the ground that complainant was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the two wheeler in question and was having the driving license to drive PSV Bus and Transport vehicle only and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy and complainant lodged the claim with the OP. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.27500/.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide repudiation letter Ex.C16/Ex.OP19 dated 16.07.2022 on the ground, which is reproduced as under:-

“We are closing your claim file on account of the following reason: This is in respect of your letter dated 15.07.2022 you do not have any driving licence for two wheelers. Hence in absence of said driving licence your claim is not maintainable. We hereby repudiate the said claim as per policy terms and conditions.”

 

12.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the abovesaid ground. OP has alleged that insured was not having driving licence to drive the two wheelers and was only having the driving license to drive PSV Bus and Transport vehicle only. The said ground is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is not possible that person who driving the heavy vehicle is unable to drive the two wheelers. Hence, the excuse of the OP is nothing rather only just to repudiate the claim and harass the complainant.

13.           Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and while giving claim amount, they make such type of excuses. Thus, the repudiation of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

14.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Complainant has claimed Rs.7361/- on account of the repair of the vehicle. In this regard, he has placed on file bills Ex.C14 and Ex.C15. On the other hand, surveyor of the OP, vide his report Ex.OP1 dated 25.06.2022 has assessed the net liability to the tune of Rs.7150/-. Hence the surveyor report will prevail. In this regard we are relying upon the judgment 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of this authority as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP is liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

16.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.7150/- (Rs. seven thousand one hundred fifty only) as the loss assessed by the surveyor of the OP alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.07.2022 till its realization to  the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.12.2024     

                                                                

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   (Sarvjeet Kaur)

  Member