Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 95 (HP)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Amir Khan

2017-02-28

MEENA VERMA, P.S.RANA, VIJAY PAL KHACHI

body2017
ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by District Forum in consumer complaint No. 148/2015 title Amir Khan v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited decided on 02.08.2016 . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Bhagat Ram filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of motorcycle No. HP-31C-0457. It is pleaded that motorcycle was duly insured with insurance company. It is further pleaded that motorcycle met with accident on dated 06.02.2015 at place Bai Khail (Bairi) District Bilaspur. It is further pleaded that accident was immediately reported to opposite party and opposite party appointed surveyor who visited spot and assessed damage. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted all relevant documents to insurance company. It is further pleaded that opposite party repudiated claim on the ground of misrepresentation. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant misrepresented facts and prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum ordered opposite party to settle claim of complainant on total loss basis with respect to motorcycle No. HP-31C-0457 within 30 days of order. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2500/- (Two thousand and five hundred). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company/opposite party filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is registered owner of motorcycle No. HP-31C-0457. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with insurance company w.e.f. 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015. There is further recital in affidavit that IDV of vehicle is Rs.77000/- (Seventy seven thousand). Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is registered owner of motorcycle No. HP-31C-0457. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was duly insured with insurance company w.e.f. 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015. There is further recital in affidavit that IDV of vehicle is Rs.77000/- (Seventy seven thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that during subsistence of insurance policy motorcycle met with accident on dated 06.02.2015 at place Bai Khail (Bairi) District Bilaspur. There is further recital in affidavit that after accident complainant immediately reported matter to opposite party and opposite party appointed surveyor who inspected spot. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant submitted all relevant documents but despite several requests insurance company illegally repudiated claim and committed deficiency in service. 9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Manoj Kumar in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company hired services of surveyor and surveyor has recommended to indemnify complainant to the tune of Rs.69662/- (Sixty nine thousand six hundred and sixty two) subject to terms & conditions of insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has wilfully misrepresented. There is further recital in affidavit that there was difference of vehicle. 10. Submissions of learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that there is material alternation in motorcycle and insurance company has repudiated claim in accordance with law is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused repudiation letter issued by insurance company. There is no recital in letter that complainant has altered motorcycle relating to engine or chassis numbers. In view of the fact that there is no recital in repudiation letter that complainant committed alternation in motorcycle relating to engine and chassis number it is held that insurance company has illegally repudiated claim of complainant and committed deficiency in service as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that after receipt of premium from complainant insurance company is under legal obligation to indemnify complainant. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf complainant that insurance company has illegally repudiated claim and committed deficiency in service is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused grounds of repudiation. Insurance company repudiated claim of complainant on the ground that vehicle completely differs from accidental vehicle. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf complainant that insurance company has illegally repudiated claim and committed deficiency in service is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused grounds of repudiation. Insurance company repudiated claim of complainant on the ground that vehicle completely differs from accidental vehicle. We have also carefully perused insurance policy annexure C-2 placed on record. As per insurance policy engine number of motorcycle has been shown as E00140 and chassis number has been shown as E00206. As per annexure C-2 insurance policy placed on record IDV of motorcycle has been shown as Rs.77000/- (Seventy seven thousand). As per insurance policy annexure C-2 placed on record period of insurance has been shown w.e.f. 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015. As per insurance policy annexure C-2 placed on record insurance company also received premium for own damage to the tune of Rs.2098/- (Two thousand and ninety eight). 12. We have also perused report of surveyor placed on record. In the report of surveyor engine number of motorcycle has been shown as E00140 and chassis number has been shown as E00206. It is held that vehicle is always identified by engine number and chassis number as per section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It is held that as per section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 alternation in motor vehicle would be deemed only when there is alteration in engine or chassis numbers. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainant has made alteration in motorcycle relating to engine and chassis numbers. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Insurance company will be entitled for salvage of vehicle along with registration certificate because claim is granted on the basis of total loss. Certified copy of order be sent to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.