BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2020.
Date of Institution : 19.02.2020.
Date of Decision : 14.03.2024.
Om Parkash aged 27 years son of Sh. Desraj, resident of Ward No.14, H.No. 917, Nezadela Kalan, Sirsai, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager/ authorized person (Financer and Intermediary AUSFB Sirsa Common Wheels – Code No. 201450781532)
2. Cholamandalam MG General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO – 2463-64, IInd Floor, Sector-22, Chandigarh through its Manager/ Authorized person/ director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Gaba, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle Toyota Etios Liva-GD bearing registration No. HR-80-6840 and got financed the same from op no.1. The op no.1 being Intermediary also got insured the vehicle from op no.2 vide policy No. 3362/01682352/000/00 for the period 21.02.2019 to 20.02.2020 and op no.2 after receiving premium of Rs.10599/- issued the above said policy. It is further averred that unfortunately on 03.06.2019 at about 1.00 p.m. the above said vehicle of complainant met with a roadside accident near village Jivan Nagar and same sustained damages. Intimation regarding the accident was supplied to the ops by complainant immediately after accident and claim was lodged vide claim no. 3362427577. The op no.2 appointed their Surveyor to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss who inspected the vehicle and also assessed the losses. The complainant also submitted all the relevant documents to the ops. It is further averred that as the vehicle sustained total loss, it was promised by ops that claim shall be indemnified in short span. That workshop/ service centre estimated tentative cost of repair to the tune of more than Rs.5,00,000/- and also asked the complainant to deposit the amount in advance for which complainant requested the ops but the ops did not take any necessary action and vehicle remained there for a continuous period of 7-8 months as unrepaired which also amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops. It is further averred that as the cost of repair was very much excessive and ops were not ready to advance any amount to the complainant to get his vehicle repaired, therefore, complainant was not having any other option except to keep the same unrepaired till date as he has no such huge amount. That thereafter complainant kept on making rounds to the office of ops and requested the ops to indemnify his claim but ops kept on avoiding the requests on one pretext or the other and they used to raise objections regarding the documentation submitted by the complainant and he was asked to submit some more documents on his every visit to the office of ops. The complainant kept on submitting the documents asked by the ops time to time but inspite of submission of all the relevant documents, the ops kept on lingering the claim on one false pretext or the other and have caused unnecessary harassment to him. That ultimately a letter dated 24.10.2019 was received by complainant from op no.2 vide which he was informed that his claim has been repudiated on the ground that he furnished wrong information and shown their inability to deal with the claim which is wrong and illegal. That complainant is legally entitled for insured sum/ claim amount of Rs.2,60,000/- qua total loss of the accidental vehicle from ops alongwith special costs and is also entitled to compensation of Rs. two lacs from ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 is only a financer of the vehicle of complainant and nothing more than that and thus no liability can be imposed upon op no.1 in this regard. In case complainant is found to be entitled to any relief, then in that eventuality, it would be only the insurance company with which the vehicle of complainant was insured at the time of alleged accident and insurance company should be held liable and responsible for the compensation etc. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non joinder of necessary party etc. It is also submitted that policy was having sum insured of Rs.2,60,000/- which was issued subject to terms and conditions. On 03.06.2019 the insured vehicle met with an accident and due intimation was given on 03.06.2019 and upon intimation the company had duly appointed a Surveyor Er. K.L. Grover on 04.06.2019. It is further submitted that survey was carried out. The Surveyor has taken into the consideration the actual damage to the vehicle, age of the vehicle, policy terms and conditions, cost of the spare parts, depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy, loss to part which are not covered under the policy and finally net assessed loss is calculated as Rs.1,96,248/-. It is further submitted that the driver did not carry a valid driving license and as per the investigation report there has been misrepresentation of facts. That as per intimation provided by insured Mr. Om Parkash on toll free number on the date of alleged accident he himself was driving the vehicle, but later on he stated to the Investigator that his friend was driving the vehicle due to the fact that actual driver did not possess valid driving licence, so he is not legally entitled for any claim as per policy terms and conditions. It is further submitted that claim was repudiated as the same does not fall under any benefit criteria as per the policy terms and conditions and as per the investigation report it is established that there has been misrepresentation on the part of the insured, thereby violation of basic principle of utmost good faith and complainant intentionally suppressed the material information in order to defraud this op by furnishing the name of wrong driver as the actual driver did not have driving licence to driver the class of vehicle. It is further submitted that there is violation of D.L. clause and regarding this repudiation letter was sent to insured on 24.10.2019. That complainant only to grab the money from the answering op has filed this false complaint. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Authorized person as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sujeet Kumar Sahu, Deputy Legal Manager as Ex. OPW2/A.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. It is an admitted fact between the parties that vehicle of the complainant Toyota Etios Liva-GD bearing registration No. HR-80-6840 which was financed by op no.1 was insured with op no.2 vide policy No. 3362/01682352/000/00 for the period 21.02.2019 to 20.02.2020 for the sum insured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- and said fact is also proved from copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance as Ex.C3. It is also not in dispute that above said vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 03.06.2019 i.e. during the period of policy in question and sustained total loss. The intimation of accident was given to op no.2 and claim was lodged with op no.2 which also appointed its Surveyor for inspection of the vehicle in question and assessment of the loss and according to complainant he also submitted all the relevant documents to the ops which fact is also not disputed by op no.2 insurance company. According to the complainant as the estimate cost of the repair was more than Rs.5,00,000/- and the op no.2 did not take any action on the claim of complainant, so the vehicle remained in the workshop as unrepaired and same is still lying as unrepaired and as such op no.2 has caused deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. The complainant has placed on file copy of repudiation letter dated 24.10.2019 as Ex.C2 according to which the claim of complainant has been repudiated by op no.2 on the ground that there has been a deliberate and willful misrepresentation on the part of complainant regarding the driver at the material time of accident. The op no.2 in its written version has also submitted that at the time of accident as per intimation provided by insured Om Parkash on toll free number he himself was driving the vehicle but later on he stated to the Investigator that his friend was driving the vehicle due to the fact that actual driver did not possess valid driving licence and as such complainant is not legally entitled for any claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. However, except bald statement of op no.2 in its written version as well as affidavit of Sh. Surjeet Kumar Sahu, Deputy Legal Manager as Ex. OPW2/A, there is nothing on file to prove the above said plea of op no.2. The op no.2 has not proved on record through any cogent and convincing evidence that initially insured disclosed that he was driving the vehicle in question and thereafter he disclosed that his friend was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. No call record of complainant or any affidavit of Investigator in this regard has been placed on file by op no.2. So, it is proved on record that op no.2 only to avoid payment of genuine claim has repudiated the claim of complainant on just lame and false and baseless grounds. Since the insured vehicle was totally damaged and as per loan status detail Ex.R5 placed on file by op no.1 itself, the loan has been cleared/ closed, therefore, complainant is entitled to insured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from op no.2 and non payment of the same clearly amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of op no.2 towards complainant and complainant has also suffered unnecessary harassment.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua op no.2 and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.02.2020 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.1 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 14.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
