State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Sanjiv Kumar on 2 February, 2016
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014
Date of institution: 24.12.2014
Date of decision : 02.02.2016
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Booth No. 3,
Improvement Trust, Scheme No. 11, Chandigarh Road,
Hoshiarpur.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 19,
Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai through its Legal Manager.
.....Appellants-Opposite Parties
Versus
Sanjiv Kumar aged 42 years, son of Shri Tirath Ram Sharma,
resident of village Chhota Bagowal, Tehsil Mukerian, District
Hoshiarpur.
......Respondent-complainant
Appeal against the order dated 21.10.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Vinod Kuma Gupta, Member
Sh. Upjeet Singh Brar, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Kartik Gupta, Advocate VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by District First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, Sanjeev Kumar, was partly accepted and opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 2,74,976/- to him alongwith consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000/-, as compensation and litigation expenses. It was further ordered to pay that amount within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order and failing that, it was made liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,74,976/- from the date of complaint i.e. 09.05.2014 till realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Sanjiv Kumar, filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against opposite parties (in short "OPs") on the averments that he was owner of one Toyota Innova car bearing registration No. PB-01-7461 which was duly insured with OP No. 1. He was using the said vehicle for earning his livelihood. The agent of the OPs took the R.C. of the vehicle for the purpose of getting the car insured and at that time it was revealed by the complainant that the fitness certificate/passing of the vehicle had expired on 05.04.2012 and further enquired as to whether there was any necessity for fitness certificate at the time of insurance or not. Upon enquiry, agent of the OPs had disclosed that there was no such necessity for fitness certificate for getting the vehicle insured and, thereafter, on going through all the documents, the vehicle was insured for the period from 15.12.2012 to 14.04.2013 on the payment of the premium of Rs. 23,502/-. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 10.12.2012. He informed the First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 3 surveyor about the accident, who came to spot and took the photographs of the accidental vehicle. The surveyor disclosed to him that he could get the vehicle repaired from anywhere and they would pay the amount of repairs to him. Accordingly, he got the vehicle repaired from J.J. Motors, Authorized Service Station, G.T. Road, Mukerian and spent an amount of Rs. 3,39,967.80 on its repairs. He requested the OPs many times to pay the amount, spent by him on the repairs of his vehicle, but they kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, they repudiated his claim, vide letter dated 22.05.2013 on the ground that he was not having the fitness certificate of the vehicle on the date of issuance of the insurance policy i.e. 15.04.2012. It was further pleaded that the OPs had duly insured the vehicle after going through all the documents and after considering the expiry of its fitness certificate. Legal notice dated 14.03.2014 was duly served upon the official of the OPs, but they did not reply the same. The act and conduct of OPs, in repudiating his claim, amounted to deficiency in service on their part. He prayed for issuance of the following directions to them:-
(i) to pay claim amount of Rs. 3,39,967.80; and
(ii) to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages due to inconvenience, harassment, alongwith interest & cost.
3. The complaint was contested by OPs by filing written reply before the District Forum. Preliminary objections were taken that complaint was false, vexatious and filed with malafide intention to harass them by misusing the process of law; the complaint was First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 4 not maintainable; complainant had not come to the District Forum with clean hands and had misrepresented the facts; complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; complainant was not the consumer under the Act; the complaint contained intricate and complicated question of facts and law and voluminous evidence was required by District Forum to reach at the just and final conclusion, therefore, the matter should be relegated to Civil Court. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant got the insurance policy from them and that the agent of OP No. 1 took R.C. of the vehicle from him. It was replied that he concealed the facts regarding expiration of fitness certificate and rather informed the OPs that all the taxes, including one for fitness certificate, were paid by him and the they issued the policy in good faith on the basis of assurance given by him. It was denied that agent of the OPs told him that there was no necessity for the fitness certificate. He used the vehicle in question on public road without getting the fitness certificate from the concerned District Transport Authority. The loss to the vehicle occurred on 10.12.2012 whereas fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 05.04.2012 only, and the same was not got renewed by him. It was admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.12.2012 and the surveyor had taken the photographs of accidental vehicle. They averred that the surveyor after inspection of the vehicle had assessed the loss of Rs. 83,100/- only. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by them. Other allegations contained in the First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 5 complaint were denied and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments, before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, partly allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/OPs that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 83,100/- correctly but the District Forum ignored the report of the surveyor and directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 2,74,976/- on non standard basis. The District Forum has not given any findings on the basis of the surveyor report. It was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the order of the District Forum be set- aside.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the counsel for the complainant/respondent that surveyor has assessed the loss before the repairs of his vehicle and has not assessed the loss after its repair. The complainant spent Rs. 3,36,967.80 on its repairs. There was no merit in the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The complainant got insured his Innova Car bearing registration No. PB-01-7461 with OP No. 1 vide cover note No. 313000059026 for the period from 15.04.2012 to 14.04.2013 on the payment of premium of Rs. 23,502/-. The said vehicle met with an First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 6 accident on 10.12.2012. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from J.J. Motors, authorized service station, G.T. Road, Mukerian and spent Rs. 3,39,967.80 on the repairs as per invoices. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by OPs, vide letter dated 22.05.2013 (Mark C-11). The relevant portion of this letter provides as under:-
"On perusal of the said documents and the investigation in the matter, it is observed that the Fitness of the captioned vehicle No. PB-01-7461 IS VALID UPTO 5/4/2012, whereas the vehicle met with an accident on 10.12.2012.
The vehicle was being plied against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the rules prescribed there under. Hence on breach of the "Limitations as to Use" clause of the Motor Insurance Policy, the claim stands repudiated."
9. The OPs have relied upon the report of the surveyor Ex. OP1,2/4. We have perused the surveyor report. The survey was conducted on 17.12.2012 and he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 83,100.45 before repairs of the vehicle of the complainant, but he has not assessed the loss after its repairs.
10. The complainant tried to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint by means of his affidavit Mark C-1. He deposed therein that the damage to the tune of Rs. 3,39,967.80 was caused to his car in the accident. To corroborate this deposition, he proved on record invoices Mark C-5 to Mark C-8. These retail invoices are regarding the different parts of the vehicle and labour charges. The vehicle in question was not a new one and the year of First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 7 the manufacturing thereof was 2008 (Mark C-9). Perusal of the invoices Mark C-5 to Mark C-8 show that the complainant spent Rs. 3,39,967.80 on the repairs of his vehicle. But the claim was to be settled in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy; which lays down that the depreciation was to be made on Rubber parts etc and further by taking into account the age of the vehicle. That exercise was to be done by the surveyor at the time of final inspection after the repairs, which was never done.
11. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the direction to the appellants/OPs to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount as awarded by the District Forum.
12. The arguments in this case were heard on 25.01.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT i (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (UPJEET SINGH BRAR) February 02, 2016 MEMBER Rupinder First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 8 First Appeal No. 1664 of 2014 9