District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.196/2021.
Date of Institution: 06.04.2021.
Date of Order: 18.11.2022.
Eshant Arora Son of Lt. Sh. Pradeep Arora R/o H.No. 5/1/07 Near Janta Band NIT Faridabad 121001
……..Complainant……
Versus
1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd Through Authorized Representative Having registered Head office at: E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur 302202
Service through Branch office at: 8-431-432, Opp. Escort Hospital Nehru Ground, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad 121001
2. Govind Singh, Manager (Body & Paint Department) Axon Honda At B2/73, Mohan Co-Operative Estate, South Delhi, New Delhi 110044
3. Neeraj Tiwari (Surveyor) of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. At B-431-432, Opp. Escort Hospital Nehru Ground, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad 121001
4. Jitendra Pathak (Survayor) Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. At B-431-432, Opp. Escort Hospital Nehru Ground, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad 121001
5. Lakshya Kumar (Surveyor/Investigator) Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. At B-431-432, Opp. Escort Hospital Nehru Ground, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad 121001
6. Akula Kasturi, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. At B-431-432, Opp. Escort Hospital Nehru Ground, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad 121001
7. Ram Kishor Kumawat, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
At B-431-432, Opp. Escort Hospital Nehru Ground, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad 121001 .
8. Policy Bazaar Registered Office At: Plot No.119, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001 Through Authorized Representative.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Manoj Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Kumar, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite parties Nos.3,4 & 5 given up on dated 11.01.2022.
Sh. Rakesh Dabass, counsel for opposite party Nos.1,6,& 7.
Sh. Saurabh Gupta and Faisal Zafar, counsel for opposite party No.8.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the Complainant was registered owner of car bearing its registration number HR51-Y-9900 Make and Modal Honda Accord. The complainant got his above mentioned car insured by respondent through Policy Bazaar and after accepting the proposal for insurance of said car the respondents issued insurance policy bearing its number as 10021/31/21/005785 in the name of complainant on 05.05.2019. The said policy was renewed by the complainant and was effective from 05.05.2020 to 04.05.2021. On 18.12.2020 at about 03:30 AM, when complainant was returning to his home after visiting temple at Goverdhan, District Mathura the said car caught in fire while driving near KD Medical College, Akbarpur Road Mathura. Complainant somehow managed to escape and saved his life. The said matter was reported to police as well as fire department immediately and the respondents by calling on their toll free number 1800 300 30000 on the same date i.e. 18.12.2020. Written Intimation/Claim form regarding the same was given to the respondents on 25.12.2020 vide Claim form number 10000 31 21 C 059077 which was duly accepted. After that a surveyor told the complainant that he had to submit RC, License, Insurance copy, CNG payment Screenshot, PAN card, Aadhar card, Vrindhawan NH-2 highway CNG pump CCTV footage police information report, fire report and written application with ID proof and said nothing else needed apart from the documents given. While accepting the claim form, the respondents assured complainant that the claim should be settled as soon as possible.The complainant given all the desired relevant documents to the executive along with claim form which were properly checked and verified by him. The said car was duly inspected at authorized service center of Honda and the technical report regarding the same was also given to the respondents (as per information given to complainant from service center). The complainant waited for a long time to get the claim to be settled as per assurance given the respondent at the time of accepting the claim form. As per record complainant was registered owner of the vehicle as well as proposer for insurance policy. Now complainant had been asked very irrelevant information just to delay or avoid the settlement of claim. Finally the respondent refused to settle the claim of the complainant. The respondent rejected the claim of the complainant on 18.03.2021 and the rejection of the claim by the respondent is arbitrary and against the law. The respondent is liable to settle the claim within stipulated time which they badly failed to settle due to reason best known to them. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) Settle the claim as per the IDV of the vehicle with interest to the tune of 18% Per Annum from the date of claim.
b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1, 6 & 7 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Noa.1, 6 & 7 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that at the very threshold of the allegations contained in the complaint, the complainant had violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy by not supplying his consent & damaged vehicle to the insurance company despite numerous correspondence as the insurance company was ready to settle the claim by replacing the damaged vehicle with same make & model, because the damaged vehicle was beyond repair, in view of terms & conditions of the insurance policy so issued in this regard. Not only this, from the investigation report dated 26.02.2021and enclosures thereto conducted by an independent investigator Viz. Lakshay Kumar (opposite party No.5), it was established that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy as to insured vehicle from M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd for the period of 21.04.2018 to 20.04.2019 with IDV of Rs. 4,44,600/- against its purchase for Rs. 2,50,000/- from its previous owner Viz. Khushi Ram Rawat by concealing the true & material fact of cost of insured vehicle and subsequently the said vehicle was got insured from the opposite party No.1 under insurance policy w.e.f. 05.05.2019 to 04.05.2020 with IDV of Rs. 4,90,002/- and thereafter same was got renewed we.f. 05.05.2020 to 04.05.2021 with IDV of Rs. 442502/- thus in view of the condition No.3 of the insurance policy the insurance company was ready to settle the claim by replacing the damaged vehicle with same make & model but the complainant had not forwarded any response in sharing his consent despite numerous correspondence. As such, the issue under the present complaint does not fall under the peri-pheri of the provisions and more particularly the word "deficiency" as defined under section 2(11) & word "service" as defined section 2(42) and the word "unfair trade practice" as defined section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant neither had any cause of action nor locus standi in lodging of the present complaint before this Hon'ble Commission, reason being, as a matter of record, the complainant had intimated the insurance company on 18.12.2020 at 11:44 AM with regards to fire loss of his Car No. HR-51Y-9900 so occurred on 18.12.2020 at 3.30 AM and thereafter an independent IRDA licensed surveyor viz. Mr. Jitendra Pathak (opposite party No.4) was deputed by the insurance company for assessing the loss. After survey on 23.12.2020, the said surveyor had submitted his survey report to the insurance company. After that, during process of the claim at the end of the insurance company, it has been observed that the damaged vehicle was beyond repair thus the insurance company was ready to settle the claim by replacing the damaged vehicle with same make & model in view of terms & conditions of the insurance policy for which consent & damaged vehicle was sought by the insurance company vide letter & reminders thereto but the complainant had not forwarded any response in reply thereto, thus, in absence of such requisite consent & damaged vehicle the insurance company was not in a position to process the claim on merits. Not only this, from the investigation report dated 26.02.2021 and enclosures thereto conducted by an independent investigator Viz. Lakshay Kumar (opposite party No.5), it was established that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy as to insured vehicle from M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd for the period of 21.04.2018 to 20.04.2019 with IDV of Rs. 4,44,600/- against its purchase for Rs. 2,50,000/- from its previous owner Viz Khushi Ram Rawat by concealing the true & material fact of cost of insured vehicle and subsequently the said vehicle was got insured from the opposite party No.1 under insurance policy w.e.f. 05.05.2019 to 04.05.2020 with IDV of Rs. 4,90,002/- and thereafter same was got renewed w.e.f. 05.05.2020 to 04.05.2021 with IDV of Rs. 4,42,502/- thus in view of the condition No.3 of the insurance policy the insurance company was ready to settle the claim by replacing the damaged vehicle with same make & model but the complainant had not forwarded any response in sharing his consent despite numerous correspondence. Thus, the complainant had violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, hence, the insurance company have arrived at the decision in treating such claim as "Closed" by following the guidelines of the insurance company, which decision cannot be termed unconscionable at all. Opposite parties Nos. 1, 6 & 7 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the answering respondent no.2 was not a proper party to the complaint, that the respondent was a surveyor, the survey was conducted on the request of the complainant himself by the respondent no.2. The respondent no 2 sent his expert technical team to the spot. The technical team after survey had given the estimate of damage of about Rs.16,26,374/- and the copy of estimate of amount which was approx. Rs. 16,26,374/- was handed over to the complainant. Opposite partyNo.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.8 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.8 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable against the Opposite Party No. 8. The Opposite Party No. 8 was merely an intermediary in the sale and purchase between Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The present complaint had been filed in relation to repudiation of insurance claim by the Opposite Party No. 1 (Insurer). The Opposite Party No. 8 had nothing to do with the settlement or repudiation of insurance claim by Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant raised Insurance Claim under the Insurance Policy which was issued by Opposite Party No. 1. It was submitted that the said claim could not be fastened in any manner against the Opposite Party No. 8 which was not even a party in the insurance contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 8.Opposite partyNo.8 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Shri Manoj Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he gives up opposite parties Nos.3,4 & 5 being unnecessary party.
Accordingly, opposite parties Nos.3,4 & 5 were given up from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 11.01.2022.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Shriram General Insurance Company & Others with the prayer to: a) Settle the claim as per the IDV of the vehicle with interest to the tune of 18% Per Annum from the date of claim. b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Eshant Arora, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C-2 – Certificate cum policy schedule, Ex.C-3 – General Dairy Details, Ex.C-4 – Fire report, Ex.C-5 – statement of Ishant Arora, Ex.C-6 – Motor Dawa Patar, Ex.C-7 – Pollution under control certificate,, Ex.C-9 parking slip, Ex.C-10 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-11 – Cash Receipt (Workshop) voucher, Ex.C-12 – Re-estimate, Ex.C-13 – email dated Jan. 29,2021, Ex.C-14 – legal notice,, Ex.C-15 – postal receipt, Ex.C-16 – Claim status, Ex.C-16 – letter dated 18.12.2020 to Thana Chhata, Mathura, Ex.C-18 – statement of Paras Sharma, Ex.CW2/A – affidavit of Azad Singh.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1,6 & 7
strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1,6 & 7, affidavit pf Shri Suryapal Singh Manager (Legal), M/s. Shriram General
Insurance Co. ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Ex.R-1 (colly) – Certificate cum policy schedule,, Ex.R-2 – Certificate cum Policy Schedule valid from 05.05.2019 to 04.05.2020, Ex.R-3 (colly) , Ex.R-3 (colly)- Developed Motoveys for – Shriram General Insurance, Ex.R-4 – Motor Dawa Patar, Ex.R-5 – Fire report,, Ex.R-6 – General Dairy Details, Ex.R-6- General Dairy, Ex.R-7 – Ishant Arora,, Ex.R-8 – letter dated
18.12.2020, Ex.R-9 – OD Claim Investigation Report, Ex.R-10 – insurance policy valid from 21.04.2018 to 21.04.2019, Ex.R-11 – Missed call details, Ex.R-12(colly) - email, Ex.R-13 (colly)- email dated 18.05.2021.
As per the evidence of opposite party No.2 Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Shri Jatin Arora (AR), Operation head for Axon Automatives Pvt. Ltd., B2/73, Mohan Co-operative estate, South Delhi, New Delhi.
As per evidence of opposite party No.8, Ex.OP-8/A – affidavit of Shri Rohit Kumar S/o Shri Akhil Kumar, aged about 30 years, having office address at plot No. 119, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Ex.OP-8/1 - letter of authority.
9. In this complaint, the complaint was filed with the prayer to settle the claim as per the IDV of the vehicle with interest to the tune of 18% Per Annum from the date of claim.
10. As per the evidence led by the complainant, the complainant is asking the IDV value of the damagaed car but as per the evidence led by the opposite party, counselfor opposite party agitated and argued at length that as per the survey report of the opposite party the car in question was bought cheaper than the IDV
value vide Ex.C-2. As per the survey report of the surveyor namely Lakshya Kumar Investigator vide Ex.R-9, the car was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,74,109/- and fixed the IDV of the vehicle in question as per Ex.C2 i.e. Rs.4,42,502/-.
11. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complain its allowed on the non standard basis.
12. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 50%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
13. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion
that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
Total IDV value of disputed car in question : Rs.4,42,502/-
Value assed by the investigator as per surveyor : Rs.2,74,109/-.
Deduction 50% on non standard basis on IDV value : - Rs. 2,21,251/-
Rs. 2,21,251/-
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000/-
: Rs. 2,20,251/-
Salvage deducted : - Rs. 40,000/-
Payable amount : Rs.1,80,251/-
9. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,80,251/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29, 30 and Form 35A. In case the complainant is not willing in keeping vehicle in question he is entitled for Rs.2,20,251/-. If the complainant is willing in keeping vehicle in question he is entitled for Rs.1,80,251/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200 as compensation for
mental tension and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 18.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
