PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
Consumer Complaint No.-110/2023
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,
Govinda Bhoi, Aged about 49 years
S/O- Late Gokul Bhoi,
R/O of At/PO-Bheden, PS-Bheden.
Dist-Bargarh-768103, Odisha. …………........Complainant
Vrs.
- M/S G.N. Automation,
Plot No.1708/6786, Remed Chowk, Larpank N.H-6,
Sambalpur, Odisha-768006.
Email- sales@gnautomation.in
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
II Floor, 45/46, Hotel, Basera Ashok Nagar, Janpath,
- M/S Mahendra Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Ground Floor, Sadhana House, Behind Mahindra Towers, 570 P.B Marg Worli, Mumbai-400018.….…...…….Opp. Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Smt. M. Mishra & associates
- For the O.P. No.1 :- Sri. D.Mishra, Adv. & Associates
- For the O.P. No.2 :- Sri. B.K. Purohit, Adv.
- For the O.P. No.3 :-Sri. A.K. Sahoo, Adv. & Associates
Date of Filing:07.07.2023, Date of Hearing :06.11.2023 Date of Judgement : 02.01.2024
Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a self employed person and has taken the Indane Gas Delareship at Bheden and earning his livelihood. The Complainant for home delivery of Indane Gas at door step intend to purchase a Mahendra Electric Treo Tor from OP No.1 dealer and service provider. On 22.07.2021, the Complainant had taken advance booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- and on 30.07.2021an amount of Rs. 3,22,705/- to the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 issued sale certificate . The OP No. 1 issued warranty card on 30.07.2021 for a period of 3 years. The OP No.1 also handed over the R.C Book to the Complainant. The OP No. 1 for the first time insured the vehicle after receiving Rs. 8,980/-from the Complainant and insured the vehicle with Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. On 31.07.2021 valid for the period 31.07.2021 to 30.07.2022 covering own damage liability coverage and CPA Cover. In the next year the OP No. 1 insured the vehicle with OP No. 2 after receiving an amount of Rs. 4,965/- and issued policy dtd. 30.07.2022 coverage for the period 31.07.2022 to 30.07.2023 covering own damage, liability coverage and CPA coverage. On 14.02.2023, the vehicle met an accident near petrol pump in Luhakhandi under Bheden P.S while the Complainant was taking the loaded vehicle for delivery, near Petrol Pump at about 2.30 p.m , suddenly a Motor-cycle rider came across the vehicle, as a result to save he mortor-cycle rider the Complainant turned the three wheeler to his left, thereby the vehicle entered into a big hole the canal. On the advise of OP No. 1 &2, the Complainant on 15.02.2023 took the damaged vehicle to the service center of OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 received the three wheeler and issued receipt dtd. 15.02.2023. On the same day the mechanic of OP No. 1 after verification of the vehicle issued job card and gave the expected date of delivery on 24.03.2023. After several request when the OP No. 1 not delivered the vehicle, the Complainant told the OP No. 1 to give the list of parts to be utilized in the vehicle. The OP No. 1 gave a details of parts to be used in accident vehicle estimating Rs. 71,771/-. On 14.02.2023 a claim was also registered by the OP No. 2. When the OP No. 2 did not take any settlement step the Complainant on 26.06.2023 and 27.06.2023 contacted but the OP No. 2 remained silent, which amounts to deficiency in service. The OP No. 2 on 27.06.2023 replied that one new claim work will be done. Again on 28.06.2023, the OP No. 2 informed service message will be given. Lastly, on 29.06.2023 the OP No. 2 service Manager said soon claim shall be settled but not settled the claim. Hence this case.
- The Version of the OP No. 1 is that the Complainant was insisting one Mr. Guru who was working as Body shop Manager in the service center of OP No. 1 to show total loss of the vehicle to which the then Body shop manager told him that neither it was in his hand nor in the hands of any of the employee of this OP. The Complainant had also met the then G.M, service and also approached him to show the accident vehicle as total loss. The then G.M told him that it is not in their hand and if he wants so, he can approach directly to the surveyor and the estimation is Rs. 71,771/- and unless the surveyor visits to the OP No. 1 and gives approval letter with respect to the estimate cost towards the repair of the vehicle, the OP No. 1 could not start their work. Finally the claim was closed on 11.05.2023, as the claim withdrawn by the insured i.e the Complainant himself. After closure of the claim, nothing was in the hand of the OP No. 1 and only the Insurance Company who can reopen the claim. In view of the aforesaid facts, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the OP No. 1 and the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of this OP is not made out and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No. 1.
The Version of the OP No. 2 is that the Insurance Company received intimation from an employee of the Dealer on 21.02.2013 that the vehicle met with an accident on 14.02.2022. On receiving such information, the Insurance Company registered a claim, raised query on related to the insured to submit all relevant documents to process the claim further. But, there was absolutely no response from the insured. With, a message was received from the employee of the Dealer that the insured has withdrawn the claim. Hence, the Insurance Company had no other option but to close the claim.
The Version of the OP No. 3 is that the OP No. 3 is only an insurance broker has been only licensed by IRDAI to act as such, for remuneration and who arranges insurance for his clients with insurance companies and/or reinsurance for his client and has no role or say in admission and/or rejection of claim. Thus, the OP No. 3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the petition and the name of Answering OP is liable to be expunged from the instant proceeding.
- From the version and submission of the parties and from the documents it is observed that the OP No 1 is the dealer and the OP No. 3 is the TPA, who are in collusive way working together. In the other hands, from the submission of OP No. 2, there is a whatsapp message in which the Complainant sent “As discussed, I want to withdraw my claim. Claim no is 3313021975.
From the pleading of Complainant and submission it reveals that as per advice of the O.Ps the Complainant was working. When no any settlement was made by O.P. no.2, on the advice of O.P. no.2 on 02.06.2023 second time photographs and documents have been sent to the O.P. no.2 and assured to settle be 15.06.2023. In the other hand the O.P. No.2 who advised to withdraw the claim taken the plea that the Complainant has withdrawn the claim. The O.P. No.2 has acted in a manner against the procedures of law. Which is unfair in trade practice and deficiency in service established against O.P. No.2. From message of O.P. no.2 dated 28.06.2023 to work on new claim. Here question arises why O.P. No.2 not worked on the first claim and advised to close the claim. Claim was delayed and O.P. No.1 is taking the benefit of retention vehicle charges.
Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case the following order is passed.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on contest against O.P. No.2 and dismissed against O.P. No.1 & 3. The O.P. No.2 is directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the value of the vehicle as it is an electric vehicle and after accident it has no any use and no FIR has been lodged. Further the O.P. No.1 is directed not to charge any amount to-wards retention changes of the vehicle from the Complainant. The amount shall be settled within one month of this order and incase of non-settlement it will carry 12% interest P.A. w.e.f. 15.02.2023 till realisation. O.P. no.1 & 2 shall pay litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. No any other cost and compensation.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd day of Jan, 2024.
Supply free copies to the parties.
