Haryana

Sonipat

87/2014

RANDHIR SINGH S/O BHAGWAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. MALWA AUTO SALES PVT. LTD., 3. MAGMA FINCORP PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJ KUMAR

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.87 of 2014

                                Instituted on:01.04.2014

                                Date of order:15.12.2015

 

Randhir Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, r/o H.No.312, VPO Saidpur, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

                                          ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Bharti Axa General Ins. Co. Ltd. Regd. Office Ist Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddenakhundi off quter ring rod, Benglauru, Karnatka, through its Manager.

2.Malwa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.near Sai Mandir, Kabirpur byepass Sonepat through its Branch Manager (Frenchisee of Bharti Axa Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd.)

3.Magma Fincorp. Ltd. Shop no.203, Pawan Mega Mall, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sanjay Gautam Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.Rohit Gupta, Adv.for respondent no.1.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte.      

           Sh. RS Garg, Adv. for respondent no.3.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased a new vehicle Santro Hyundai Car Model 2012 from the respondent no.2 and got it registered vide registration no.HR79-1248. The respondent no.2 on behalf of respondent on.1 got insured the said vehicle for a sum of Rs.346498/-.  Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 12.9.2013 and DD no.21 dated 13.9.2013 was lodged with PP Saidpur, distt. Sonepat. The complainant intimated the respondents about the accident and the vehicle was inspected by the representative of the respondent no.2 and declared the vehicle as total loss.  The complainant lodged the claim with the respondents and completed all the formalities, but till date, the respondents have not paid any amount to the complainant.  The said vehicle was financed with the respondent no.3 and prior to the accident, the complainant was making the regular payment of EMI at the rate of Rs.8300/- per month.  Due to non settlement of the claim by the respondent no.1, the complainant could not make the payment of installments to the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 is extending threats to charge penal interest/surcharge from the complainant on account of delay in payment of installments. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 3 appeared and has filed their separate written statement, whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.9.2014.

          In reply, the respondent no.1 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was processed by the respondent no.1 by way of appointment of independent IRDA approved surveyor M/s IAR surveyor and loss assessor and M/s Suraksha Enterprises for investigation of claim. The complainant’s claim was repudiated vide letter dated 11.4.2014 since the complainant provided him an affidavit in which it is clearly mentioned that the complainant had sold the subject vehicle to Ravi on 10.2.2013 for Rs.1,30,000/- i.e. after the inception of policy on 20.9.2012.  The name of driver was mentioned as Bijender Singh at the time of intimation and the same is filled in the claim, but during investigation, Ravi provided his statement that Deepak was driving the vehicle at the time of loss and the same is confirmed from the copy of police information.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 11.4.2014.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 has submitted in its written statement that the complainant has approached the respondent on.3 for taking a vehicle loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for purchase of Santro Car.  The same was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant which was to be repaid in 36 installments of Rs.8270/- from 20.9.2012 to 20.8.2015.  The complainant has failed to adhere the financial discipline and made continuous default in making the payment of installments as on 30.3.2015 an amount of Rs.145351/- is due and outstanding against the complainant being default installments and as on 30.3.2015 an amount of Rs.189096/- is due as foreclosure amount. The respondent no.1 insurance company be directed to first pay the insurance claim to the respondent no.3 for settlement of financed outstanding amount.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the claim of the complainant was processed by the respondent no.1 by way of appointment of independent IRDA approved surveyor M/s IAR surveyor and loss assessor and M/s Suraksha Enterprises for investigation of claim. The complainant’s claim was repudiated vide letter dated 11.4.2014 since the complainant provided him an affidavit in which it is clearly mentioned that the complainant had sold the subject vehicle to Ravi on 10.2.2013 for Rs.1,30,000/- i.e. after the inception of policy on 20.9.2012.  The name of driver was mentioned as Bijender Singh at the time of intimation and the same is filled in the claim, but during investigation, Ravi provided his statement that Deepak was driving the vehicle at the time of loss and the same is confirmed from the copy of police information.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 11.4.2014.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

          In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the case law titled as Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Vs. Parmanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, CWP no.15037 of 2008 decided on 14.9.2010, order dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled asU Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Vs. Tarsem Lal, order dated 16.1.2014 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. Akbar, order dated 3.12.2013 passed in case titled as New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Thakur, order dated 14.2.2014 passed in case titled as Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Co. Ltd., orer dated 26.2.2015 passed in case titled as National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohinder Singh, order dated 22.11.2013 passed in case titled as as Hukam Singh Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., order dated 4.12.2014 passed in case titled as HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Versus Bhagchand Saini.

          Ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent no.1 wrongly and illegally has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Unfortunately the vehicle in question has met with an accident on 12.9.2013 and DD no.21 dated 13.9.2013 was lodged with PP Saidpur, distt. Sonepat. The complainant intimated the respondents about the accident and the vehicle was inspected by the representative of the respondent no.2 and declared the vehicle as total loss.  The complainant lodged the claim with the respondents and completed all the formalities, but till date, the respondents have not paid any amount to the complainant.  The said vehicle was financed with the respondent no.3, but due to non settlement of the claim by the respondent no.1, the complainant could not pay the amount of installments to the respondent no.1.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the complainant has approached the respondent on.3 for taking a vehicle loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for purchase of Santro Car.  The same was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant which was to be repaid in 36 installments of Rs.8270/- from 20.9.2012 to 20.8.2015.  The complainant has failed to adhere the financial discipline and made continuous default in making the payment of installments as on 30.3.2015 an amount of Rs.145351/- is due and outstanding against the complainant being default installments and as on 30.3.2015 an amount of Rs.189096/- is due as foreclosure amount.

5.        After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that the entire pleadings and evidence led by the complainant creates suspicion in the mind of this Forum.

          Firstly as per the complainant the vehicle met with an accident on 12.9.2013 and DD no.21 dated 13.9.2013 was lodged with PP Saidpur, distt. Sonepat.

          Similarly one another DD report no.6 dated 29.11.2013 lodged with PP Saidpur is also available on the case file regarding the accident of the same vehicle no.HR-79/1248 which took place on 17.9.2013.

          But the perusal of the complaint of the complainant shows that the complainant no where mentioned the occurrence dated 17.9.2013 and in our view, that amounts to concealment of fact on the part of the complainant particularly when the present complaint has been filed on 1.4.2014 before this Forum and the amended complaint was also filed by the complainant on 8.8.2014.

          In the claim form dated 30.10.2013, the name of the driver is mentioned as Bijender.

          Further there is concealment of fact on the part of the complainant Randhir Singh because as per affidavit of Randhir Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, he has already sold his vehicle no.HR-79/1248 on 10.2.2013 to one Ravi son of Rajbir Singh for Rs.1,30,000/- and it was also settled in between Randhir Singh-complainant and Ravi that the payment of balance amount of installments shall be made by the buyer Ravi son of Rajbir Singh.  This affidavit is also corroborated by Ravi in the same manner that he has purchased vehicle no.HR-79/1248 from Randhir Singh on 10.2.2013 for Rs.1,30,000/- and he will make the payment of balance installments to the financier.

          Further in the DD report no.21 dated 13.9.2013 the name of the driver is mentioned as Ravi son of Rajbir, whereas in the DD report no.6 dated 29.11.2013, the name of the driver is mentioned as Bijender.

          So, all this create suspicion in the mind of this Forum and it is well proved that the complainant prior to accident has already sold his vehicle on 10.2.2013 to one Ravi which is proved from the affidavit of Ravi itself.

          So, taking into consideration the arguments advanced and law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the respondents by way of filing the present complaint. The concealment of fact on large scale is proved on the part of the complainant and the complainant has also tried his level best to mislead the Forum.  But the evidence led by the respondent no.1 has made the things very clear and it is also proved that prior to the date of accident, the vehicle in question was already sold by the present complainant on 10.2.2013 to one Ravi and the complainant no where in the entire complaint or affidavit has mentioned the another material fact regarding the accident  for which another DD report no.6 dated 29.11.2013 was lodged by the complainant.  In our view, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and for the lapses on the part of the complainant himself, the respondents cannot be held liable and thus, we have no hesitation to dismiss the present complaint since it has no merit.

          The present complaint is hereby dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided toboth the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  15.12.2015