Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 59
Instituted on : 22.01.2021.
Decided on : 02.01.2024.
Mohit age 23 years, son of Jai Bhagwan, resident of House no.188, village BhallotDistt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. office at E-8, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur(Rajasthan)-302022, through its Manager/A.R.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.PuneetChahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of vehicle Saloon bearing registration no.DL-3CBY-0625 which was insured with respondent company vide policy no.10020/31/20/010910 for IDV of Rs.349965/- valid from 14.08.2019 to 13.08.2020. It is further submitted that on 06.02.2020, the alleged vehicle met with an accident during the process of saving Neel cow which was suddenly came in front of the said vehicle, near Ladhot Chowk in the area of P.S. Sadar, Rohtak. Due to impact of this accident, the aforesaid vehicle fallen in a nearby pit and caught fire and suffered total damage. The driver of the vehicle also suffered injuries in the alleged accident. The complainant duly informed the officials of the opposite party on time and the vehicle of the complainant was got surveyed by the surveyor of the respondent company and he declared the vehicle as total loss. After that complainant applied for the claim and submitted all the documents as desired by respondent vide claim no.10000/31/20/C/12062 and the surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle. Complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the claim amount but the opposite party issued letter dated 17.08.2020 to the complainant vide which respondent required clarification from the complainant and complainant completed the required clarifications but despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim amount has not been paid to the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.349965/-alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.100000/- for causing mental tension & harassment and also to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its written reply and has submitted that they had appointed an IRDA approved independent surveyor for survey and assessment of total loss of vehicle no.DL-3CBY-0625 wherein the Final insurer’s liability is IDV-policy clause-salvage value(Rs.349965-2000-10000/-, which is Rs.337965/-). Moreover the CNG kit was present in the vehicle which is not approved as per the RC of the vehicle and the presence/fitting of the same in the vehicle is breach of policy terms and conditions. The respondent insurance company sent a letter dated 21.02.2020 to complainant to provide some requirements. But the complainant has not submitted the documents & requirements. Hence the opposite party repudiated the claim on genuine ground of non supply of the documents and also fitting of the CNG kit without any lawful change in the RC of the vehicle. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence on dated 24.11.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and closed his evidence on dated 29.09.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by the opposite party as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. After the accident, complainant filed the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who assessed the loss of Rs.337965/- but the same has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that CNG Kit was present in the vehicle which is not approved as per the RC & policy of the vehicle and the presence/fitting of the same in the vehicle is the breach of insurance policy terms and conditions. Opposite party also sent letters to the complainant to provide some requirements but the complainant failed to submit the documents. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. At the time of issuance of the policy, agent took photographs of car which has been placed on record by the insurance company itselfin his evidence. Perusal of the RC itself shows that the CNG kit has not been endorsed in the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. So the same could not be endorsed in the insurance policy. As per our opinion, there is deficiency in service on the part of agent of insurance company who issued the insurance certificate after inspecting the vehicle in which CNG kit has already been installed. The insurance company should not issue the insurance certificate to this type of vehicle but when the insurance certificate has been issued, then they are liable to pay the claim. Moreover surveyor has not mentioned in his report that CNG kit was fitted at the time of accident in the vehicle in question. Complainant counsel has submitted that CNG kit was removed just after the insurance because it is not possible for the complainant to endorse the same in the registration certificate as well as in the insurance policy. Regarding the non-submission of documents sought by the opposite party, it is observed that all the documents must have been submitted by the complainant with the surveyor as the surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of documents submitted by the complainant. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim on non standardbasis on account of salvage as well as violation of terms and conditions of the policy i.e. Rs.349965/- less 25% = 262260/-.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.262260/-(Rupees two lac sixty two thousand two hundred and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.01.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of RC within 15 days.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.01.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member
