New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pardeep Singh

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act), has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") dated 14.03.2018 in Appeal No.809 of 2017 filed by the Complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short "the District Forum") dated 30.05.2017 in Complaint No.121 of 2015 whereby his Complaint was dismissed.

The State Commission, while allowing the Appeal, issued the following directions:

"17. For the purpose of assessment of the total loss caused to the vehicle, estimate Annexure C-4 prepared by Bansal Motors has been placed on the file wherein the total amount to be spent for repair of the vehicle has been assessed as Rs.6,05,489/-. Shri I. B. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by the Insurance Company for assessment of the total loss caused who also in his report dated 17th March, 2015 (annexure R-2) mentioned invoice value as Rs.6,06,753/- and assessed payment on total loss basis as Rs.4,84,322/- and net liability on total loss with RC Rs.3,14,322/- after deducting Wreck Value and depreciation value etc. The surveyor in his report has also mentioned it a case of total ---- (sick). In our view, when it was a case of total loss, no question arises to make payment on total loss basis and net liability of total loss as assessed by the surveyor as the accident took place after five months from the date of providing insurance policy. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, it is a case of total loss. The complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- being IDV of the vehicle with interest and compensation on account of unnecessary harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation."

Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent, i.e., the Complainant Pardeep Singh is the registered owner of car vehicle (Maruti Ritz) bearing registration No.HR-31H-9212. This car was insured with the Petitioner vide insurance policy No.31260031140101817925. The policy was valid for the period from 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015. The premium was paid on the Insured Declared Value (IDV) Rs.5,16,093/-. During the validity of this policy, i.e., on 05.01.2015, Ramphal father of the Complainant, Seema wife of Complainant, Atma, Ms. Akshi daughter of Complainant, Akshat son of Complainant, Isha daughter of Complainant and Dhyan Singh son of Sunehra were travelling in the insured car on their way to Jind after attending a marriage party of Aman son of Kanwar Sahab at Village Dilluwala, District Jind. Mr. Deepak was driving the said vehicle. This vehicle met with an accident on account of a blue bull (neel gai) suddenly coming in front of the car on the road. It was badly damaged. Another car which was also being driven along with this car reached there and immediately, the injured were shifted to General Hospital, Jind.

The matter was reported to Police Station and the entries were made in the daily diary registered at serial No.18 maintained in the Police Station, Sadar, Jind. In this accident, Ramphal, father of the Complainant succumbed to his injuries received in the accident. A young child Akshat, aged 2½ yrs. old also received severe injuries on his body including the head injury and remained in the Hospital at Rohtak from 6th January 2015 to 12th January 2015 and thereafter, he was shifted to various other Hospitals at Jind for his treatment. The Complainant submitted in his claim with the Petitioner and submitted all the relevant documents and estimate of loss caused to him. On March 17, 2015 Petitioner on the assurance that his claim to the tune of Rs.4,84,322/- has been passed, took his consent letter in the form of an affidavit. However, vide letter dated 31.08.2015, the claim of the Respondent/Complainant was repudiated on two grounds. First that there was a delay of 10 days in informing the Insurance Company and second that 8 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident and hence, there was violation of terms and conditions.

The State Commission on the basis of findings rejected both the contentions of the Petitioner. As regards to the fact that 8 persons were travelling in the vehicle and thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the State Commission held has under:

"15. Coming now to the second ground regarding repudiation of complainant's claim that eight persons including driver were travelling in the vehicle involved in the accident. Dhyan Singh who recorded his statement before the Police has mentioned in his statement (Annexure R-5) that Ramphal s/o Sh. Hajari Lal, Deepak s/o Sh. Ramphal, Seema w/o Sh. Pardeep, Atma w/o Sh. Deepak, Ashi d/o Sh. Deepak, Akshat s/o Sh. Deepak and Isha d/o Sh. Pardeep were travelling in the car vehicle at the time of accident. Pardeep was driving the vehicle. Dhyan Singh was also travelling in the same car vehicle. The sitting capacity of the car vehicle, as mentioned in the Registration Certificate (Annexure R-4) and report of the surveyor (Annexure R-2), is 4+1. During the course of arguments, there was also no controversy that out of those eight persons, three were young aged children. The age of Ashi, Akshat and Isha was 6 years, 2½ years and ten years respectively. In the vehicles used for commercial purposes also, young aged children like in the case in hand are not provided separate seats however they are allowed to travel in the vehicle. In fact, these young aged children were travelling with their parents and other family members. Moreover, it is not the version of the Insurance Company that on the front passenger seat, more than one passenger were travelling and due to this reason it became the cause of accident. In our view due to the above mentioned reason also, the opposite parties should not have repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. It is evident from the judgment dated 21st October, 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (MACT) Annexure C-7 that the compensation amount has been awarded in favour of Akshat injured and Deepak Singh. Anyhow, the complainant has claimed compensation on account of his own damage but merely because these three young aged children were also travelling in the same vehicle, it will not be justified to repudiate the insurance claim of the complainant."

As regards the contention of the Petitioner that there was a delay of unexplained 10 days in informing the Insurance Company, the State Commission has held as under:

The insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company after receiving report of the surveyor on two grounds. First ground of repudiation was that the Insurance Company received information regarding involvement of the vehicle in accident after ten days and second ground of repudiation was that eight persons were travelling in the car vehicle beyond the sitting capacity of the car vehicle. There is no un-necessary delay in giving information to the Police of Police Station, Sadar Jind regarding involvement of the vehicle in the accident and entries in this regard were made in the daily diary register maintained in the Police Station on January 06th, 2015. The delay of ten days in giving information to the Insurance Company regarding this accident also cannot be taken so seriously. Due to this accident, Ramphal-father of the complainant succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at the time of accident on the same date. Another young boy namely Akshat aged about two and half years sustained serious injuries on his body, more particularly head injuries. He remained admitted in a hospital at Rohtak for his treatment from January 06th, 2015 up to January 12th, 2015 and thereafter got treatment from other hospitals at Jind. In such a situation we cannot expect from an ordinary citizen to give preference to inform the Insurance Company regarding involvement of the vehicle in the accident ignoring treatment to be provided to the seriously injured passengers travelling in the vehicle and perform last rites who died due to the injuries sustained by him at the time of accident."

By this Revision Petition, the impugned order has been challenged on the two grounds that there was a delay of 10 days in informing the Insurance Company and that 8 persons since were travelling in the car; so there was a violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the findings of the State Commission are illegal.

I have heard arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the record.

In the case of "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following directions to be kept in mind by ths Commission while dealing with the Revision Petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".

It is therefore apparent that while dealing with the impugned orders in the Revision Petition, it is the duty of the Appellant/Petitioner to point out the illegality, perversity or wrong exercise of the Jurisdiction or that there was miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. No case law or authority is cited to show that the findings of the State Commission to the effect that delay of 10 days in informing the Insurance Company about the accident is sufficient for repudiation of the claim. Whether the delay is genuine or whether the delay affected the genuineness of the claim, shall be adjudicated upon only on the basis of facts proved on record. In the present case, one person succumbed to injuries and the other person, who is a young child of 2½ years received head injuries and remained hospitalized in Jind, i.e., 06.01.2015 to 12.01.2015 and thereafter, also continued taking treatment which sufficiently explained the delay in informing the Insurance Company. There is no dispute that the accident was immediately reported to the police and a daily diary was duly registered at the Police Station. In view of this fact, it is apparent that the accident was genuine. It is not a case where there was no accident and to take a false claim, the story has been put up. In view of this fact it is apparent that the delay is not fatal and is not sufficient reason to repudiate the claim.

As regards travelling of 8 persons in the vehicle is concerned, the finding of the fact clearly shows that there were 5 adults and 3 minor children of 6 yrs., 2½ yrs. and 10 yrs. respectively and also there is no evidence on record to show that on the front seat, with the driver more than one person was sitting. There is nothing to show that the findings are perverse, illegal or beyond Jurisdiction or miscarriage of justice. I rather feel that miscarriage of justice, which was caused to the Complainant by the District Forum, has been corrected by the State Commission.

The Revision Petition has no merits and is dismissed.