Haryana

Sonipat

39/2014

MAHESH GAUR S/O NIRMAL KISHOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. GALAXY AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                  Complaint No.39 of 2014

Instituted on: 03.02.2014                                                      

Date of order: 05.05.2015

 

Mahesh Gaur son of Nirmal Kishor resident of B-259 Rajput Colony, Vill. Barola, Sector 49, Noida.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.M/s Galaxy Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Galaxy Toyota, Khasra no.31/16, GT Karnal road, Kundli, distt. Sonepat throughits Manager.

2.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Iffco Tower Plot no.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon(Hr) through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.                  

           Shri Rajesh Dagar, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Shri Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

         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 one new car on 22.8.2013 and the same was got insured with the respondent on.2 for the peri8od 22.8.2013 to 21.8.2014 and unfortunately on 22.8.2013, the said vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle was shifted to respondent no.1 and intimation regarding the accident was given to the respondent no.2.  The complainant deposited all the required documents with the respondent no.2 for settlement of his claim.  But respondent no.1 has asked the complainant to get the vehicle registered and in the absence of any registration number, the claim will not be settled.   On 14.9.2013, when the complainant went to take the delivery of the car, it was told by the respondent no.1 that the claim has been repudiated and on 5.10.2013, the complainant has made the payment of Rs.76222/- to the respondent no.1 for taking delivery of the car. The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the repair cost to the tune of Rs.76222/- was paid by the complainant for taking the delivery of the car.  The respondent no.1 has rightly charged the said amount from the complainant.  The settlement or rejection of the claim falls within the exclusive area of business of the insurer.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Hon’ble Forum.  At the time of alleged accident, the vehicle in question was plying by the complainant-insured without valid and effective driving licence and that amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the complainant has tried to implant the driver just to grab the compensation.  Thus, the claim  of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the respondent no.2 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       Both the parties have been heard.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       The bare perusal of the document C8 shows that the complainant vide e-mail dated 20.9.2013 has informed to the respondent no.1 that he has purchased a car and is registered under commercial purposes and he has also informed that his car has met with an accident on 22.8.2013 from his driver.

         Shri Dhirender Singh has tendered his affidavit Ex.C4 in support of the contention of the complainant that he was driving the vehicle on 22.8.2013 at the time of accident. As per copy of driving licence Ex.C5, he was authorized to drive the Light Motor Vehicles.

         We have perused the claim form Ex.R1 which bears the signatures of the complainant Mahesh Gaur and as per his version, the claim form was filled by the surveyor at his own.  We have also perused the Motor Final Survey Report dated 14.1.2015, vide which, total amount payable has been shown as Rs.64130/-.

         So, in our view, the contention of the respondent no.2 that at the time of accident, the complainant himself was driving the vehicle in question, is not tenable in the eyes of law keeping in view the driving licence of Dhirender Singh.  Accordingly, it is held that the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.64130/- as assessed by the surveyor, from the respondent no.2. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to make the payment of Rs.64130/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization and further to compensate him to the tune Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)

Member DCDRF SNP         Member, DCDRF SNP      President, DCDRF

Announced 05.05.2015