AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 20.3.2019 whereby a criminal complaint filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed in limine solely on the ground that since the production of this particular model had been discontinued, the complainant/appellant was not entitled to a new car. It was also noted by the State Commission that the IDV of the vehicle amounting to Rs.16 lakhs had been paid to the complainant/appellant.
The insurer sent a letter dated 17.10.2016 informing the complainant that since this particular model was out of production, the settlement was governed by the policy Condition No.3. The said letter to the extent it is irrelevant, reads as under:-
"Kindly refer to Coverage b of New Vehicle Replacement Clause which reads as under:
"'The Insured Vehicle is available for sale as New Vehicle in India and is not out of production; otherwise such vehicles which are out of production, the claim will be settled as per Condition No. (3)(a) for Private Car, Two Wheelers and Condition No. and 4(a) for Commercial Vehicle respectively i.e. Total Loss/Constructive Total Loss claim settlement of Standard Motor Package Policy."
Also please refer to Policy Condition No. 3 a of the Private Care Package Policy sought and issued to You, which reads as under:
"'The Company may at its own option repair reinstate or replace the vehicle or part thereof and / or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the company shall not exceed:
a) For total loss/ constructive total loss of the vehicle - the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle (including accessories thereon) as specified in the Schedule less the value of the wreck.
The Vehicle of Model No BMW 520d, Year of Make 2009, & Insured by Yourself under the Policy 94028300, is out of production and is obsolete. Since it is obsolete and not in production anymore, the Settlement of the Claim is governed by the Conditions No. b of New Vehicle Replacement Clause- and further governed by Condition No. 3a of the Policy sought and issued.
Hence the Claim under New Vehicle Replacement is not admissible."
The case of the complainant/appellant is that policy conditions were not provided to him and only a two page policy document was made available to him. Para 3 of the consumer complaint is relevant in this regard and reads as under:-
3) The Insurance policy which was issued by the Opposite party was only a two page policy. The Schedule was issued to us. Along with the Schedule no such conditions, rules, clause or circular were intimated by the opposite party or explained and no type of Documentary Schedule was given to us. The opposite party had not given any conditions, rules, clause or Circular and we are not informed about the Schedule, Clause, Circular. The proposal form which was tiled on 01.09.2014 did not contain the conditions, Rules and Clauses of the Insurance Policy."
Considering the stand taken by the appellant/complainant in the consumer complaint, the State Commission in my opinion was not justified in dismissing the consumer complaint in limine and ought to have issued notice and then decided the consumer complaint on merits after hearing the opposite party. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the consumer complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same on merits after issuing notice to the respondent. The appellant/complainant shall appear before the State Commission on 22.1.2020.