Chandigarh Newsline:Wednesday, February 15, 2012.
While taking an insurance policy for your vehicle, carefully check the particulars mentioned in the document. A resident of Sector 44 whose registration number was wrongly recorded in the policy had to take information under the RTI Act and then knock the doors of the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to get the damage claim for his premium luxury car.
What landed Nikhil Syal, a resident of Sector 44, in a soup was that the insurance policy recorded the registration number of his vehicle as HR-68-B-0003. The actual registration number of the car was HR-68-B (T) 0003.
Syal got the car registered in August 2008, by paying a premium of Rs 21,905. In February 2009, the car caught fire at about 5.30 am, when it was parked outside his house. Syal lodged a report with the police and also informed the insurance company about the fire. His claim was refused.
In its reply, the insurance company stated that the car had been burnt purposely by sprinkling petroleum on it. The insurance company claimed that this was evident from the forensic report given by the Director of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar, in July 2009.
The insurance company also maintained that they had given a policy for a car bearing registration number HR-68-B-0003, and not HR-68-B (T) 0003. After his claim was refused, Syal first complained to the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for justice. His complaint was dismissed, and he appealed in the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the Forum’s order.
Regarding the confusion about the registration number, Syal applied to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Panchkula, seeking information under the RTI Act about registration number HR-68-B(T)0003 and also HR-68-B-0003. According to the information given to him, the registration number HR-68-B(T)0003 had the same specifications regarding the model, engine and chassis number as Syal’s car. The department informed him that HR-68-B-0003 had not been given as the registration number for any vehicle.
In this light, the Commission concluded that noting HR-68-B-0003 as the registration number was a typographical error in the policy.
The Commission further observed that in the forensic report, it was mentioned that “residues of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the contents of the exhibit”. The Commission said this did not prove that the car was burnt deliberately by the complainant by sprinkling petroleum on it.
In its order, the Commission said, “The sample which was sent for analysis was taken from the petroleum vehicle, and the detection of the existence of residues of petroleum hydrocarbons could not be ruled out.” The Commission said it was possible that somebody had burnt the vehicle out of malice. Hence, the complainant was entitled to indemnification of the total loss caused to his car.
In this light, the Commission set aside the order given by the Forum. It directed the insurance company to pay Rs 7.18 lakh to Syal as the insured value of the vehicle after depreciation, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. President of the Commission Justice Sham Sunder (retd) and Member Neena Sandhu also directed the company to pay Rs 20,000 to the complainant for the harassment caused to him, and Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.
.JPG)
.JPG)
