| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC. No. 172 of 12-04-2012 Decided on 26-09-2012
Gurtej Singh aged about 39 years S/o Gurcharan Singh, H. No.22249-A, Shant Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Bhagat Ford (Authorized Dealer, Ford Motors), Mansa Road, Bathinda. A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Opposite ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda. State Bank of India, Bank Bazar, Bathinda through its Branch Manager. Bharti AXA General Insurance, SCO 350-352 First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. District Transport Officer, Mini Secretariat, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. For the Complainant : Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties : Sh.Balkaran Singh, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 4. Sh. O.P Vinocha, counsel for opposite party No.5. Sh.Anil Gupta, counsel for opposite party No. 3. O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 24.2.2011, he purchased one New Ford Figo 1.4 ZXI Car from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.5,17,451/- as per quotation dated 21.2.2011 issued by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 after availing the loan and the aforesaid car was hypothecated with the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 while working as an agent of the opposite party No.4 insured the said car with opposite party No. 4 vide cover note No.30658370 effective from 24-2-2011 to 23-02-2012 for the IDV of Rs. 4,91,578/-. The complainant alleged that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 issued only cover note and no terms and conditions of the Insurance policy have been issued to him. The complainant was interested to get a fancy registration number of the said vehicle from the office of the opposite party No.5 and accordingly he applied for getting fancy registration No. PB-03X-033 and PB-03X-077 and deposited the draft Nos.770877 & 770878 dated 25.3.2011 for the amount of Rs.1500/- each respectively drawn on State Bank of Patiala. He also applied for fancy registration No. PB-03X-0121 and PB-03X-0303 and other numbers but he was not allotted any fancy registration number. The car of the complainant was allotted registration No. PB-03Y-8054 by opposite party No. 5 who took Rs.12,000/- in cash from him as registration fee on 18.8.2011 and assured the complainant that he will issue receipt for Rs.12,000/- later on. The complainant approached opposite party No. 5 many a times to get the registration certificate but he kept on prolonging the matter on one or the other pretext and when the complainant threatened that he will lodge the complaint with the police only then he delivered the receipt of Rs.12,000/- on 31.10.2011. The car of the complainant met with an accident on 17.10.2011 near village Ballianwali, when it was being driven by him and the damaged car was brought to opposite party No.2 for repair, which is the authorized service station of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 took the same to their Service Station situated at Industrial Growth Centre, Dabwali Road, Bathinda on 18.10.2011. The complainant alleged that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have cashless insurance tie up with the opposite party No.4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 telephonically conveyed the complainant that since the car has not been registered upto the date of accident, so he should first get the insured vehicle registered with the registering authority, Bathinda and thereafter bring it for repair. The officials of the opposite party No.2 further conveyed him that they shall show the date of accident after the registration of the car. The car was registered on 3-11-2011 vide registration No. PB-03Y-8054, but the officials of the opposite party No. 5 got deposited Rs.8500/- more from the complainant. After registration of the car, it was again brought to opposite party No.2 for repair. When no repair of the car was started by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 , the complainant wrote registered letter dated 19.1.2012 and requested the opposite party No.4 to settle his lawful claim at the earliest, but to no effect. The complainant received letter dated 20.1.2012 from opposite party No. 4 vide which it was conveyed to him that he had concealed the actual date of loss as the said vehicle was not having valid registration certificate at the time of actual loss. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide their letter dated 6-3-2012 conveyed that the opposite party No.4 has rejected the repair of accidental car on cashless basis and in this way his claim was repudiated. Vide letter dated 31.1.2012 the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 demanded Rs.300/- per day as parking charges and illegally charged Rs.4500/- vide receipt No.4029 dated 6.3.2012. The opposite party No. 2 have prepared the estimate for repair to the tune of Rs. 2,56,255/- and charged tax for the same. The complainant alleged that he obtained loan from opposite party No.3 and they compelled him to deposit the entire loan amount, which he deposited on 21.2.2012 in lum sum for which they charged Rs. 8,635.66 as pre-pone payment charges. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction of this forum to the opposite party Nos. 1,2 & 4 to pay repair charges to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- ; Rs.4500/- charged by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2; Rs. 8500/- charged by opposite party No. 5; Rs. 8635.66 charged by opposite party No. 3 besides compensation and cost. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written and took legal objection that they have sold the vehicle to the complainant, apart from this, they have no role and the dispute is in between the complainant and Insurance Company. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and have suppressed true and material facts as he purchased the car on 24-02-2011 and got registered the same on 3-11-2011 whereas as per Motor Vehicle Act, the car was required to be got registered within 30 days . They have admitted that the complainant has purchased the car from them after availing loan from opposite party No.3. They have pleaded that Insurance cover note was issued by opposite party No.4 directly, so they have no role in indemnifying the loss. The complainant has brought his car first time for repair to their body shop on 22-10-2011 but he did not have required papers/documents papers etc. for filing the insurance claim, so he took back his car in damaged condition with him. The complainant brought his damaged car for repair on 19-11-2011 and claim intimation form was filled by him wherein he filled the date of loss as 17-11-2011. All the documents for claiming insurance were sent to Insurance Company but the Insurance Company after verifying and after collecting the details of accident came to conclusion that the complainant was trying to keep the Insurance company under dark by changing the date of accident from 17-10-2011 to 17-11-2011. In this case the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 did not give permission to go ahead for starting the repair work in its email dated 13.12.2011 as such they have not repaired the said vehicle. However, if the complainant would have paid the repair charges from his own pocket then certainly they would have repaired the car. The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have pleaded that they are still ready to repair the car either at the costs of the insurance company or at the costs of the complainant. The claim of the complainant was rejected by the Insurance company and since than his car was parked at their premises so they asked the complainant either to get the car repaired or take away the same after paying the necessary parking charges and as per the policy of the company certain charges have to be levied on the owner of the vehicle only in case when the vehicle is not got repaired from them. The opposite party No.3 filed its separate written statement and admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant after availing the loan facility from them and he has deposited the entire balance amount of his loan, pre maturely as per the terms and conditions of the loan documents & arrangement letter executed by him. The pre pone charges were charged as per the rules & guidelines of RBI issued from time to time as such the same cannot be refunded. The opposite party No.4 in its separate written statement took legal objection that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Forum as he purchased the vehicle on 24-02-2011 and kept on using the same on public places without getting it registered till the date of loss. The opposite party No. 4 has admitted that the registration No. PB-03Y-8054 was allotted to the Car in question on 3.11.2011 i.e. after the date of the loss i.e. 17.10.2011, but denied that the complainant gave Rs.12,000/- to opposite party No.5 on 18.8.2011. The complainant has concocted a false story to cover up his own wrongs and to get the claim from them one way or the other by adopting all unfair means. The registration fee was deposited on 3.11.2011. The complainant has not explained as to why he remained silent from 18.8.2011 to 3.11.2011. The complainant intimated the date of accident as 17.11.2011 in order to show that there was registration certificate of the said vehicle on the date of loss. There was entry of the vehicle in question in the gate entry register of opposite party No.1 at page No.28 on 22.10.2011 and 19.11.2011 with same kilometer reading of 7223 K.Ms on both the dates. The opposite party No.4 denied that they have ever conveyed the complainant that he should get the insured vehicle registered first and then bring the same for repair and thereafter they shall show the date of accident after the date of registration. The opposite party No.4 sent letter dated 20.1.2012 to the complainant calling upon him to explain and clarify regarding the change of the date of loss and other points, but he did not give any clarification as to why he tried to misrepresent/conceal the actual date of loss. The opposite party No. 4 got the matter thoroughly investigated from Bee Vee Investigating Agency and its report clearly shows the manipulations and concealment on the part of complainant. The complainant has violated Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The opposite party No.5 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that they used to auction the fancy numbers and no personal service is ever sent to each participants/candidates rather the public notice is got published in the newspapers and the specific date is given therein that the auction of fancy number will be held on such date and if the complainant did not attend the office for a particular day then they are not responsible in any way. The complainant may receive back the concerned drafts, if any, from the concerned officials in the office of the opposite party No.5 during the working days. The opposite party No.5 further pleaded that Hardev Singh as alleged in the complaint is not a govt. employee in the office nor he is empowered to receive such amount as cash is always deposited in the bank through Challans and now this process has been changed and the amount of motor tax is being deposited through online services. The opposite party No. 5 has pleaded that it has no concern with insurance policy or claim of the complainant. The office of opposite party No. 5 used to charge the motor tax on the basis of letters received from the office of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Head Office Chandigarh from time to time. The opposite party No. 5 admitted that it had received letter dated 3-11-2011, but there is no provision for refund of excess amount received earlier. Moreover, the letter concerned is in prospective nature and not in retrospective manner. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the complainant purchased New Ford Figo 1.4 ZXI Car from opposite party No. 1 on 24-02-2011 for an amount of Rs. 5,17,451/-. The car was hypothecated with opposite party No. 3 and insured with opposite party No. 4 vide Insurance Cover Note No. 30658370 for the period from 24-02-2011 to 23-02-2012 for the IDV of Rs. 4,91,578/-. The car in question met with an accident. The complainant lodged the claim with opposite party No. 4 and it deputed the surveyor as well as Investigator and thereafter repudiated the claim of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that the repudiation of claim of his car is illegal. He has applied for registration on 18-08-2011 and paid Rs. 12000/- in cash to Hardev Singh, registration clerk in the office of opposite party No. 5, but no receipt of payment was issued to him. He had also applied for fancy registration number of the car in question. His car met with an accident on 17-10-2011. The complainant took his car to opposite party No. 2 for repairs and opposite party No. 1 & 2 conveyed him that since his car has not been registered upto the date of accident, he should first get the car registered thereafter they shall show the date of accident after the registration of the car. Accordingly, after getting the car in question registered, the complainant again approached opposite party No. 2 for repair but it refused to repair the vehicle on the pretext that opposite party No. 4 rejected the repair of the accidental car as it was not having valid registration certificate at the time of actual loss. On the other hand, the plea of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is that first time complainant brought his car to their workshop for repair on 22-10-2011 but he did not have required papers for filing insurance claim, so he took back his car and again he brought his car for repair on 19-11-2011. The Insurance company did not allow repair work on its expenses on the ground that complainant has been trying to keep the Insurance Company under dark by changing the date of accident from 17-10-2011 to 17-11-2011. The plea of the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No. 4 is that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as the contract of insurance is based on 'Uberimma Fides” i.e. utmost good faith. The complainant firstly violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, used the vehicle without registration for about 9 months and in order to conceal the said fact further gone to the extent of changing the date of loss and even tried to manipulate the record in order to get the claim one way or the other. The opposite party No. 4 deputed Er Rajesh Garg, surveyor to assess the loss of the car of the complainant who submitted his report Ex. R-4. A perusal of this report reveals that date of purchase is mentioned as 24-02-2011 and date of registration is as 01-11-2011. The date and time of accident as 17-11-2011 at about 8.30 p.m. Thereafter the opposite party No. 4 deputed M/s. Bee Vee Investigating Agency, Patiala, investigator to investigate the matter. Ex. R-5 is the Investigation report of said investigator. The conclusion part of the said report reads as under :- “Conclusion : In view of the statement of Sh. Jaskaran Singh s/o Sh. Malkit Singh resident of Balaiana (owner of tractor tolley involved in the accident) and as per the entry of the said car of dated 22-10-2011 found in the entry register at page No. 28 of Bhagat Ford Bhatinda and also as admitted by the insured during our telecom talk had with him on 25-12-2011, it is confirmed that Ford Figo car bearing temporary registration No. PB-10-DA(T)1901 bearing Eng/Ch. No. BK08008 had met with an accident on the night of 17-10-2011 at village Balaiana and not on 17-11-2011 as stated by the insured in his written statement made to us as well as in his affidavit submitted to the insurers. Insured who purchased the car in February, 2011 did not apply for the permanent registration of the car. Meanwhile his car had met with an accident on 17-10-2011. Insured after the accident of his car deposited the road tax on 31-10-2011 and 3-11-2011 as evident from the challan copies collected from the insured and later on intimated to the insurers about the accident of his car on 17-11-2011 concealing therein the correct date of accident i.e. 17-10-2011. Insured during telephonic talks had admitted that he had just changed the month of accident only whereas date place and cause of accident was the same i.e. instead of 17-10-2011 he had shown as 17-11-2011. CD of the telecom talk had with the insured is attached with the report. Insured had tried to cheat the Insurance Company by misrepresenting and making the false declaration to obtain the insurance claim of his car.” The aforementioned investigation report makes the position crystal clear. Moreover, in the complainant, the complainant has himself admitted that his car met with an accident on 17-10-2011, but on the asking of opposite party No. 1 & 2 that firstly to get the car registered and then get the same repaired as they will show the date of accident after registration, he again approached opposite party No. 2 for repair of car. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 in their written statement have denied this fact that they ever asked the complainant to do the same. It is well settled that admitted facts needs no formal proof. The complainant deposed in para No. 13 of his affidavit Ex. C-9 that Insurance company insured the vehicle and not the registration number of the vehicle. Moreover, if there is any delay in getting the vehicle registered then registering authority i.e. opposite party No. 5 can impose penalty for the same as per rules. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file, this Forum is of the view that firstly the complainant tried to get the claim from the Insurance Company by concealing the fact and when the opposite party No. 4 repudiated his claim after thorough investigation, he knocked the door of this Forum to get the claim by taking plea that the Insurance company insured the vehicle and not the registration number. A person who approaches the Forum/Court must do so honestly and with clean hands. In this regard, the support can be sought from law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case titled Ram Pal Vs. Vinod Kumar and Others FAQ(MVA) No. 17 of 2000 decided on 31-12-2004 wherein it has been held :- “A person who approaches the Court, must do so honestly and with clean hands. There can be no sympathy for a person who tried to produce false or forged documents and tries to mislead the court. The petitioner by trying to do so has totally dis-entitled himself to get any benefit from this Court.” Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled SP Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and other CA No. 994 of 1972 decided on 27-10-1993 reported as 1994(1) C.L.J. 426 has observed that :- “...The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused, property garbers, tax-evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupluous persons from all walks of life find the court – process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains definitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” In view of what has been discussed, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence not entitled to any relief from them. Thus, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 26-09-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
