Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/2

Gurdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S.Rattan, Adv.

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                      Consumer Complaint No.       :       02 of 08.01.2016

                          Date of decision                   :        06.06.2016

           

Gurdev Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Sh. Munshi Ram, resident of Village Dolan, P.O. Bassi, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi, District Bilaspur

 

                                                                    .....Complainant

 

                                                Vs.

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sector-I, Naya Nangal, District Rupnagar through its Sr. Divisional Manager.

 

  

                                                                      ….Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

          Protection Act, 1986

 

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY

 

                   Sh. S.S. Rattan, Advocate, counsel for  by the complainant 

                   Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for O.P.

 

 

ORDER

                    MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

          Sh. Gurdev Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party  hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying therein that the O.P. be directed to:-

i)       To pay Rs.1,49,704/- as amount of maintenance and repair of the vehicle in question and further Rs.200/- per day as parking charges till its realization along with interest        

ii)      To Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, on account of mental agony, physical and financial harassment suffered by him

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost,

 

 

2.                       In brief, the case of the complainant is that the he is the owner of the Car bearing registration no. HP-24D-1196, Model Grand i-10 of Hyundai Motors India ltd.  He got it insured on 28.08.2015 from the OP vide policy bearing No.1109003134P110483380, which was valid upto 27.02.2016. On 19.03.2015, his car met with an accident in the area of P.S. Kiratpur Sahib. He intimated the office of the OP regarding the accident and has requested to compensate him as per insurance policy. The O.P. deputed a surveyor, who assessed the loss and got the photographs of the accidental vehicle and thereafter he towed his vehicle to M/s punj Motors Pvt, Ltd.Amb Road Rainsary, Tehsil and District Una (H.P) for its repair and maintenance.  M/s Punj Motors repaired the same but it is still lying with it because the O.P. had not disbursed the repair charges to it, inspite of the fact that the O.P. was well aware of the fact that M/.s Punj Motors raised estimated bill of Rs.1,49,704 for repair. He approached the O.P. many times to settle his claim but it was avoiding on one excuse or the other vide letter dated 3.8.2015, refused to pay the claim amount.  As per the said letter dated 3.8.2015, the O.Ps. alleged that at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, he had concealed the fact of getting the previous claim. It is stated that he approached the dealer/agent of the O.P. to get the insurance policy and it was the duty of the agent of the O.P./dealer to verify before issuance of insurance policy regarding the previous claim and if he was not entitled for no claim bonus in that event the agent of the O.P. had to charge the due premium from him. He got the policy from the O.P. to secure his interest. The policy, which the O.P. issued on receipt of premium amount is not manual but is a system generated and if at that time it was found that the benefit of NCB has been given to the complainant wrongly and the premium received by the O.P. from the complainant through the agent of the O.P. was not proper, in that event the demand could have been raised from him for the amount of NCB, interest and tax thereon, but no such demand was raised by the O.P. till accident, survey and repair of his vehicle. The O.P. did not even issued any letter to him to cancel the policy for getting the benefit of NCB. The O.P. has wrongly denied to pay the claim amount, for which he was legally entitled to. It is further stated that his car is lying with the dealer, even after its repair because of non payment of claim amount by the O.P. and it is, demanding parking charges @ 200 per day.  The O.P. has wrongly repudiated his genuine claim. Hence, this complaint.    

      3.                             On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar Gautam, Divisional Manager, the United India Insurance Company Limited, taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. because insurance company after applying the proper mind and going through the terms and condition of policy has repudiated the claim; that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as there are so many complicated facts are involved in the present case, which could not be decided in the summary nature without recording the evidence and their cross examination, only civil court has jurisdiction to decide this matter. On merits, it is stated that after receipt of the information regarding alleged accident from the complainant, the O.P. had deputed surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor had assessed the loss for Rs.1,10,563/- as per terms and conditions of the policy, but the complainant had taken one claim from previous policy from New India Assurance Company, Hamirpur, and enjoyed 20% NCB of Rs.1,250.87 on new policy after giving wrong declaration in the proposal form, therefore, the claim lodged by him is not payable as per GR-27 of India Motor Tariff. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

     4.                               On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 & photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to C10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gautam, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Ex.OP1 & photocopies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

 

        5.                  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of this file, carefully.

          6.                Admittedly, the car of the complainant met with an accident    during the validity period of insurance. On lodging of claim by the complainant, O.P. deputed a surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,10,563/- as is evident from surveyor report dated 06.05.2015 Ex.OP3. However, O.P. repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03.08.2015 Ex.C3, on the ground that the complainant had already taken the claim for the previous policy taken from New India Assurance Company but by concealing this fact and by giving wrong declaration in the proposal form had availed 20%  rebate as No Claim Bonus while taking this policy. As such, there is breach of policy condition as per GR-27 of India Motor Tariff.

                                      Now, the questions arises for consideration, is as to whether, the complainant had concealed the factum of taking of claim from the previous insurer.

                   From the perusal of copy of email dated 03.07.2015, Ex.OP-6, exchange between the O.P. and the New India Assurance Company, it is clear that the complainant had availed one claim during the period of previous policy, as such, complainant was not entitled to No Claim Bonus while taking this policy. However, from the perusal of proposal form attached along with the claim note Ex.OP-2, it is evident that the column meant for ‘whether entitled for NCB’ is Blank. This shows that the O.P. never asked the complainant with regard to obtaining of any claim from the previous insurer. Moreso, the O.P. before issuance of the policy, was duty bound to check as to whether, the proposal form has duly been filled and signed by the insured or not. Thus, on the basis of the said proposal form, it cannot be said that the complainant had given false declaration and has concealed the fact of having taken claim against the previous policy. The O.P. has pleaded in the written version that at the time of issuance of the policy rebate of Rs.1250.87 was given to the complainant but to corroborate this fact has not placed on record any document, therefore, this plea of the O.P. is baseless. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the repudiation of the claim by the O.P. on the ground of concealment of fact based on the proposal form is wrong. Hence, the O.P. is deficient in providing services to the complainant, therefore, it is not only liable to pay claim amount but also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses.

 

                   The next question arises for consideration is, what should be the quantum of claim.

                   From the report of the surveyor Ex.OP-3, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the loss for Rs.1,10,563/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.1,10,563/- and not Rs.1,49,704/- as prayed for. 

              7.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed and O.P. is directed in the following manner:-

i)                 To pay Rs.1,10,563/- as claim amount to the complainant.

ii)                To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

iii)               To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant

                   The O.P. is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall pay interest @ 9% on the awarded amount besides litigation costs

 

           8.               The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                  (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 06.06.2016                             PRESIDENT

 

         

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                            MEMBER.