Haryana

Kaithal

219/21

Surajbhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Genral Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mehar Singh Rajrana

11 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.219/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.09.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:11.07.2023.

Surajbhan son of Sh. Bhalle Ram, resident nof Village Firozpur, Tehsil Siwan, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Plot No.36-37, Ist Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala, District Patiala (Punjab) PIN-147001.

reliance general.co.in.

….OP.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Mehar Singh Rajrana, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Surajbhan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is registered owner of Trax Cruiser bearing registration No.HR-64A-3941 and has got insured the said vehicle with the OP vide policy No.201022023400002546 valid for the period w.e.f. 06.12.2020 to 05.12.2021 and paid a sum of Rs.56,580/- as premium amount.  On 17.06.2021 at about 10.00 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident near Jhajjar-Bye-Pass.  An FIR No.226 dt. 18.06.2021 was got registered by the police under Section 279/304-A IPC in P.S.City, Jhajjar against the complainant.  The complainant had taken the vehicle from local police on Superdari vide order dt. 23.06.2021.  The complainant has got repaired his vehicle at Barwala, District Hissar and paid an amount of Rs.1,05,309/-.   The complainant lodged the claim with the OP vide claim No.3121111188 dt. 17.07.2021 but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.07.2021.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the insured vehicle in question is hypothecated with financier Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Ltd. is a proper and necessary party in this case; that the insured has purchased the policy from Shreyansh Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., who is an intermediary towards the purchase of said policy.  The complainant, therefore, is not a consumer of the answering Op as per the definition of consumer under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019; that the insured vehicle in question was being driven with 11 passengers on board, which is evident from complainant’s statement and investigation report, as against the permitted capacity of 10.  Therefore, the insured vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, specifically against the provisions under the ‘Limitation as to Use’ Clause. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C16 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is registered owner of Trax Cruiser bearing registration No.HR-64A-3941 and has got insured the said vehicle with the OP vide policy No.201022023400002546 valid for the period w.e.f. 06.12.2020 to 05.12.2021 and paid a sum of Rs.56,580/- as premium amount.  It is further argued that on 17.06.2021 at about 10.00 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident near Jhajjar-Bye-Pass.  An FIR No.226 dt. 18.06.2021 was got registered by the police under Section 279/304-A IPC in P.S.City, Jhajjar against the complainant.  The complainant had taken the vehicle from local police on Superdari vide order dt. 23.06.2021.  It is further argued that the complainant has got repaired his vehicle at Barwala, District Hissar and paid an amount of Rs.1,05,309/-.   It is further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP vide claim No.3121111188 dt. 17.07.2021 but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.07.2021.  It is further argued that the said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the insured vehicle in question is hypothecated with financier Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Ltd. is a proper and necessary party in this case.  It is further argued that the insured vehicle in question was being driven with 11 passengers on board, which is evident from complainant’s statement and investigation report, as against the permitted capacity of 10.  Therefore, the insured vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, specifically against the provisions under the ‘Limitation as to Use’ Clause.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OP has placed on file copy of Assessment Summary, which is Mark-A, wherein the insurance liability payable is shown to be Rs.6700/-.    

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The OP has repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.07.2021 as per Annexure-C3 mainly on the ground that at the time of accident, 11 persons were seated inside the vehicle, whereas the seating capacity per policy and registration certificate is 10.  In this regard, the OP has relied upon the statement of complainant as per Annexure-R2 and investigation report as per Annexure-R1.  To rebut the said contentions of OP, ld. counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the investigator had obtained the signatures of complainant on blank papers, so, this statement of complainant is not genuine document and the same is forged and fabricated statement.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as NIA Vs. Pradeep Kumar, 2010(1) CPC 387 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it is mentioned that “Insurance claim-Surveyor’s report-Claim of complainant pertaining to accident of insured truck was accepted on the basis of original vouchers, bills and receipts-The allegation that surveyor’s report has not been made the basis of claim is not correct-Report of surveyor is not always last and final word for settlement of claim nor it is binding on insurer or insured-Claim of Rs.1,58,409/- with 12% interest awarded by District Forum held to be justified-Insurance company advised not to spend money unnecessarily on frivolous litigation-Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/-.”  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authority produced by ld. counsel for the OP titled as Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII 2018(1) CLT 508 decided by Hon’ble National Commission is not distinguishable but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  The document copy of Assessment Summary-3121111088 produced by ld. counsel for the OP during the course of arguments as Mark-A is also not helpful to the OP.  The OP has not produced on file any other document on file from which it could be proved that that at the time of accident, 11 persons were seated inside the vehicle.  So, this contention of OP has not force.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The complainant has placed on file repair bills amounting to Rs.1,05,309/- as per Annexure-C7 to Annexure-C10.  So, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.1,05,309/-

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to pay the amount of Rs.1,05,309/- to the complainant within 45 days from today, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:11.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.