Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
GURBINDER KAUR - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal Case No. 631 of 2007
Decided on : 07-12-2007
Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra (proxy) for Mrs. Vandana Malhotra, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable for the repair charges if the policy was valid at the time of the accident, and the jurisdiction for filing a complaint is determined by Section 11(2)(b).
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - Section 11(2)(b) - The court discussed the validity of the insurance policy, cancellation of the policy, liability of the insurance company, and the jurisdiction for filing the complaint. The court held that the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident and the insurance company was liable to make payment for the repair charges incurred by the appellant. The court also determined that the appellant had jurisdiction to file the complaint at Chandigarh under Section 11(2)(b).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's car was insured with the respondents, and after an accident, the insurance company cancelled the policy and refused to make payment for the repair charges incurred by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident, and the insurance company was liable to make payment for the repair charges. The court also determined that the appellant had jurisdiction to file the complaint at Chandigarh.
Issues: Validity of the insurance policy, liability of the insurance company, jurisdiction for filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurance company was held liable for the repair charges as the policy was valid at the time of the accident. The appellant had jurisdiction to file the complaint at Chandigarh.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the impugned order of the District Consumer Forum was set aside. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to make payment of Rs. 48,126 to the appellant along with interest.
ORDER
K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 5.7.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which her complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) Mrs. Gurbinder Kaur was registered owner of Maruti-800 car bearing Registration No. PB-10-BL-0356. She got it insured with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through respondent No. 3 Gulzar Motors Ltd. vide insurance cover Annexure C-1 from 19.1.2006 to 18.1.2007.
3. It was next averred that unfortunately the car met with an accident on 21.1.2006 near B.D.O office, Amloh at 6.30 a.m. and the car was damaged. The appellant lodged complaint with P.S. Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib vide DDR, copy of which is Annexure C-3. Intimation was also given to respondent No. 3 as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at Ludhiana on 21.1.2006 but neither any Surveyor was appointed, nor any other person visited the site of accident for four days. Photograph of the damaged car is Annexure C-4. She got the car repaired from Billing Motors, Khanna Road, Amloh and paid Rs. 48,126 vide bill Annexure C-8.
4. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed. She claimed Rs. 48,126 as the repair charges along with interest @ 12% with effect from 21.1.2006 till payment and further claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension, etc. besides Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses.
5. Respondent No. 3 did not put in appearance, hence, it was proceeded against ex parte. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their Counsel and contested the complaint. They admitted that appellant had given premium to respondent No. 3 for issuance of cashless insurance policy and the policy Annexure C-1 was issued to her on 19.1.2006 but the said policy was cancelled by respondent No. 3 on 23.1.2006 and it refunded the amount to the appellant. The documents are Annexures R-1 to R-3. Therefore, they prayed that since, policy had been cancelled, so, they are not liable to make payment.
6. Parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits.
7. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 5.7.2007 dismissed the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate proxy for Mrs. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and carefully gone through the file.
10. At the outset we may state that the impugned order is based on confusion. In para No. 7 it has been observed that since policy was cancelled after its issuance, unilaterally by the respondents without giving notice to the appellant (complainant) which was improper and not justified but further observed that since policy in question had been cancelled and premium had been refunded, so, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not liable to make payment of the compensation. It is hardly of any importance if the appellant had not disclosed the fact that the policy had been cancelled and the amount had been refunded.
11. The fact is that respondent No. 3 (Gulzar Motors Ltd.) is authorized agent of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for insuring the vehicles. The appellant got her Maruti Car 800 insured with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 had issued certificate of insurance vide Policy No. 20100775 in her favour on 19.1.2006 and the appellant had paid premium of Rs. 4,780 to respondent No. 3 vide Annexure C-2 against total premium of Rs. 4,788 as per Annexure C-1. Admittedly the policy was cancelled on 23.1.2006. The accident had taken place on 21.1.2006 as is clear from the DDR No. 9 dated 21.1.2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that the DDR was got recorded after cancellation of the policy or in fact no accident had taken place and was a made up story. Thus, on 21.1.2006 there was valid insurance policy.
1
