Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/337

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.K.Uppal

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 337 dated 09.12.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 11.01.2023.

 

Manoj Kumar aged 39 years son of Sh. Haqiqat Rai, Shop No.13, Grain Market, Shanewal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office: 51, First Floor, Near Bank of India, Dana Mandi, Sahnewal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                  …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. S.K. Uppal, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Tata 407 bearing registration No.PB-10-ES-9959 (Ex. C1)  and got the same insured from the opposite party vide comprehensive insurance policy No.2010813119P101196738 having validity from 22.04.2019 to midnight of 21.04.2020 (Ex. C2) by paying premium of Rs.8537/-.  On 22.06.2019, the said vehicle met with an accident having total estimated loss of Rs.1,80,000/-. The complainant informed the opposite party and submitted claim No.2010813119C050070001 vide email dated 23.06.2020 and motor claim intimation dated 26.06.2019 (Ex. C3). The vehicle was purchased in the year 2015 and insurance was got renewed every year from the opposite party. Al the relevant papers including RC, route permit and driving licence were checked thoroughly by the officials of the opposite party at the time of insuring the said vehicle. One Mandeep Singh Agent Code No.AGN1003203 inspected all the documents at the time of renewal of the policy from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2020 and he himself filled the form and got signatures of the complainant without explaining the contents written and filled by him on the form of insurance. The complainant further submitted that the said vehicle was used only as a private vehicle and there is no mention of public vehicle even on the RC and route permit. The opposite party did not pay the claim for total loss of the vehicle and rejected the same on the ground that the vehicle is a public carrier as per route permit and insurance is of private carrier. The file of the complainant was closed and he was informed vide ref. No.2020/467 dated 15.07.2020 (Ex. C4). The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3,15,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by not paying the claim amount. In the end, the complainant has made prayer for directing opposite party to pay Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest @18% per annum along with litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. The opposite party alleged that the complainant lodged the claim regarding damage to his Tata 407 bearing registration No.PB-10-ES-9959 and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and processed. M/s. Relicare Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessor was deputed for spot survey and their representative inspected the vehicle, clicked photographs of the vehicle, collected the documents and submitted their spot survey report dated 24.06.2019 along with documents. M/s. A.K. Enterprises, Surveyor and Loss assessor was deputed for survey and assessment of loss and their representative inspected the vehicle, clicked photographs, collected documents and submitted their survey report dated 16.10.2019 along with documents and assessed the loss of Rs.60,945/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. After receipt of spot survey report and motor survey report along with documents, the claim file was duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy and after applying mind by the official of the company, the claim of the complainant was found not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy and claim was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 15.07.2020 which was received by the complainant on 15.07.2020. The opposite party further alleged that the complainant had insured his truck as a private carrier but said vehicle permit is a public carrier and it is violation of Motor Vehicle Act which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy No.2010813119P101196738  w.e.f. 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2020 was obtained by the complainant as private carrier and not as a public carrier. No premium has been paid as a public carrier which is mandate in order to cover the risk of the vehicle as public carrier along with other consequential risks. The claim of the complainant is not payable and has been rightly repudiated through letter dated 15.07.2020 due to violation of Motor Vehicle Act by the complainant. The insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer on the basis of utmost good faith and both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.              

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the facts stated in preliminary objections and brief facts of the case and denied the deficiency of service on their parties. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 copy of RC of the vehicle, Ex. C2 copy of insurance policy w.e.f 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2019, Ex. C3 is the copy of motor claim intimation, Ex. C4 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 15.07.2020, Ex. C5 is copy of insurance schedule, Ex. C6 is the copy of permit dated 18.05.2015, Ex. C7 is the copy of permit dated 22.01.2020 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party  tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Inderjit Singh, Divisional Manager of opposite party, affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. Kamalpreet Singh, Prop. of M/s. Relicare Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessor, affidavit Ex. RW3/A of Sh. Ashok Chawa, Chief Executive of M/s. A.K. Enterprises along with document Ex. R1 is repudiation letter dated 15.07.2020, Ex. R2 is the copy of email dated 26.06.2020, Ex. R3 is the copy of email dated 17.06.2020, Ex. R4 is the copy of claim details report, Ex. R5 is the copy of motor survey report of A.K. Enterprises, Ex. R6 to Ex. R10, Ex. R13 to Ex. R20, Ex. R37 to Ex. R39 are the photographs of the vehicle, Ex. R11 is the copy of the motor survey report of Relicare Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors, Ex. R12 is the tax invoice of Relicare Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors, Ex. R21 is the motor claim form, Ex. R22 and Ex. R23 are the copies of bill dated 12.07.2019 of M/s. Ranjit Auto Mobiles, Ex. R24 is the copy of fitness certificate of the vehicle, Ex. R25 is the copy of letter dated 17.07.2019 of A.K. Enterprises, Ex. R26 is the copy of driving licence of the Parminder Singh son of Dharam Pal Singh, Ex. R27 is the copy of PAN card of the complainant, Ex. R28 is the copy of aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. R29 is the copy of reminder dated 27.07.2019 of A.K. Enterprises, Ex. R30 to Ex. R35 are the copies of bills, Ex. R36 is the copy of re-inspection report motor dated 16.10.2019 of A.K. Enterprises, Ex. R40 is the copy of letter written by the complainant to the opposite party, Ex. R41 is the copy of certificate of provisional registration, Ex. R42 is the copy of letter for verification of permit particulars good carriage dated 04.02.2020, Ex. R43 is the copy of letter for verification of permit particulars dated 30.01.2020, Ex. R44 is the copy of motor claim intimation dated 26.06.2019, Ex. R45 is the insurance policy from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2020 and closed the evidence.  

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

6.                Perusal of the record shows that the vehicle in question was purchased in the year 2015 and since then, the insurance policy is being renewed by the opposite party. It was lastly renewed for the period from 22.04.2019 to the midnight of 21.04.2020 vide policy Ex. C2. In the registration certificate Ex. C1 as well as certificate of insurance Ex. C2, the gross weight of the vehicle has been mentioned as 4450 Kg and there is also a recital that the vehicle to be a private one in Ex. C2. There is no dispute regarding the intimation of accident, subsequent submission of claim and the validity of the registration certificate and driving licence of the driver. This fact is also evident from the fact that the opposite party has deputed firstly M/s. Relicare Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors for spot inspection and collection of documents who submitted survey report on 24.06.2019 vide report Ex. R11. Thereafter, M/s. A.K. Enterprises, Surveyor and Loss Assessors also inspected the vehicle and submitted his report dated 16.10.2019 vide report Ex. R5 and assessed the loss to be Rs.60,945/- against the claim of Rs.1,80,000/- submitted by the complainant.

7.                The claim of the complainant was closed by the opposite party vide letter dated 15.07.2020 Ex. C4 = Ex. R1, the operative port of which is reproduced as under:-

“With ref. to our email dated 23.06.2020 regarding the loss of your vehicle regd. no.PB10FS9959 is insured with us as a Private carrier but at the time of scrutiny, of claim papers your said vehicle permit is pubic carrier and your insurance is Pvt. Carrier it is violation of Motor Vehicle Act, hence competent authority has closed your file as no claim.”

The sole ground on which the claim of the complainant has been closed is that the permit of the said vehicle is for public carrier while the vehicle has been insured as private and it amounts to violation of Motor Vehicle Act. Neither in the closure letter Ex. C4 = Ex. R1 nor in the pleadings or in the evidence, the opposite party has disclosed as how holding of vehicle as a private carrier is violation of which section, rule or regulation of Motor Vehicle Act. It has also not been specified that which of the terms and conditions of the policy have been invoked to close the claim case of the complainant. If a vehicle is a public carried then the opposite party usually charge more premium than the private carried in order to cover the risk of the vehicle. No mis-representation or concealment of facts on the part of the complainant has been averred, attributed or established by the opposite party. Rather it is the complainant who specifically deposed that one Mandeep Singh, Agent Code No.AGN1003203 inspected all the documents while renewing the insurance policy from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2020. It is Mandeep Singh, agent of the opposite party who filled the form and got the signatures of the complainant without explaining the contents written and filled by him on the form of insurance. It is also a specific case of the complainant that the said vehicle was only used as a public vehicle. The reports of both surveyors Ex. R5 as well as Ex. R11 are also silent about this aspect and rather they have recommended the settlement of the claim subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, it is concluded that the closing of claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 15.07.2020 Ex. C4= Ex. R1 is not legal and justified. In the report Ex.R5, M/s. A.K. Enterprises, Surveyors and Loss Assessors has assessed the loss/damage to the vehicle in question as Rs.60,945/-. Further as per his report Ex. R36 the said surveyor has assessed that the vehicle was found freshly repaired and excellent in running conditions after carrying out repairs/replacements  The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report Ex. R5 and Ex. R36 is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any objections to controvert the averments made in the written statement.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall consider and pay the claim to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R5 and as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 day is from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Manoj Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                              CC/20/337

Present:       Sh. S.K. Uppal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall consider and pay the claim to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R5 and as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 day is from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.