| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 516 of 2014 Date of Institution: 19-09-2014 Date of Decision: 20-08-2015 Rakesh Kumar son of Narinder Kumar, resident of 4747, Ram Tirath Road, VPO Mahal, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, having its Head Office at SCO No. 350-351-352, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
- Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at SCO 32, IInd Floor, Pal Plaza, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
- Bank of India, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Branch Manager.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Kultar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Sh. R.P.Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Sumit Bhatia, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Hyundai Fludic Verna Car bearing RC No.PB-02X-4848 by obtaining loan of Rs.9 lacs from Opposite Party No.3-Bank. Said car was insured by Opposite Party No. 1 for a value of Rs.8,52,000/- vide cover No.32645301 dated 16.10.2013 for the period commencing from 19.10.2013 to 18.10.2014 and paid Rs. 24649/- as premium. On 6.6.2014 at about 4 PM, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and in the said accident, axle, chassis and shell of the car was badly damaged. Matter was reported to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and by arranging recovery van from Amritsar Recovery Van Association, the damaged car was taken to the service centre of Hyundai Agency. The Opposite Parties appointed Mr.Barjinder Singh, Surveyor for assessment of the loss. The estimate of loss of Rs.7,44,000/- was given by M/s.Novelty, Hyundai. The vehicle in question as per the loss assessment made by the Novelty Hyundai is a total loss vehicle and irreparable. The vehicle is damaged to such an extent that by the huge repair as estimated, there is no possibility of the proper working of the car in question and risk to the occupiers will continue to sustain even if the car is repaired. As per the estimate given by M/s.Novelty Hyundai, the car in question is irreparable and can not set right even with huge expenses estimated by Novelty Hyundai. The complainant has made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to sanction the actual insurance value, but the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are dilly delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to award the compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of total loss of the car amounting to Rs.8,52,000/- alongwith interest accumulated thereon. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded. - On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the loss is not exceeded 75% of the IDV, then the claim do not cover under the total loss basis. In the present case, as per the estimate of the surveyor Barjinder Singh, the loss has been assessed to Rs.3,80,752/- which is less than 75% of IDV i.e. Rs.8,20,000/- and due intimation was given to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. Even the letters dated 3.7.2014, 31.7.2014, 9.8.2014 and e-mail dated 30.8.2014 was sent to the insured to get his vehicle repaired, but till date the insured has not given its consent to start the repair, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this complaint. As the loss is less than 75% of the IDV, therefore, this can not be considered under the total loss case. Moreover, the vehicle is repairable; hence the present complaint is without any cause of action. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite Party No.3-Bank appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint has been filed against the Opposite Party No.3 without any cause of action. The contract regarding the insured of the car was not executed between the complainant and Opposite Party No.3- Bank. If the complaint is decided in favour of the complainant, then claim of the complaint be transferred to the account of Opposite Party No.3-Bank. So, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3-Bank is not maintainable.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit of Inderpal Singh Ex.CW2/A, alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19.
- Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tushar Anshu Ex.OP1,2/1, affidavit of Barjinder Singh Surveyor Ex.OP1,2/2 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/3 to Ex.OP1,2/11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- Opposite Party No.3-Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Sb.Ram Kumar, Chief Manager Ex.OP3/1 and copy of agreement of hypothecation Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3-Bank.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Hyundai Fludic Verna Car bearing RC No.PB-02X-4848 by obtaining loan of Rs.9 lacs from Opposite Party No.3-Bank and got the said car insured with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide cover No.32645301 dated 16.10.2013 Ex.C7 for the period commencing from 19.10.2013 to 18.10.2014 with IDV of Rs.8,52,000/-. Said car met with an accident on 6.6.2014 at about 4 PM when it was being driven by Inder Pal Singh son of Saroop Singh, near G.T.Road, Jandiala Bye Pass, as a result of which, the car was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the insurance company immediately. After arranging recovery van, the damaged vehicle was taken to the service centre of Hyundai Agency. The Opposite Parties appointed Mr.Barjinder Singh, Surveyor for assessment of the loss. M/s.Novelty, Hyundai service centre has given the estimate of loss of Rs.7,44,000/-vide assessment sheet Ex.C12 to Ex.C16. As such, the vehicle is damaged to such an extent that there is no possibility of the proper repair. As such, it is a case of total loss. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for settling the claim of the complainant for total loss of the car, but the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the loss is not exceeded 75% of the IDV of the vehicle, then the claim do not cover under the total loss basis. As per the estimate of the surveyor Barjinder Singh vide report dated 10.1.2014 Ex.OP1,2/3, the loss has been assessed to Rs.3,80,752/- which is less than 75% of IDV i.e. Rs.8,20,000/-. Due intimation was given to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. Even the letters dated 31.7.2014 (Ex.OP1,2/4), letter dated 9.8.2014 (Ex.Op1,2/6), letter dated 25.8.2014 (Ex.OP1,2/8) and e-mail dated 30.8.2014 (Ex.OP1,2/9) were sent to the insured to get his vehicle repaired, but till date the insured has not given his consent to start the repair. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The surveyor has given his final surveyor report in which he has assessed the Net Loss Payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,07,437/- which may be, if repair is undertaken. The complainant was asked to get the vehicle repaired and submit the actual bill of repair of the vehicle, so that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 could settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of actual repair and amount spent on actual repair on the vehicle, but the complainant has not given the consent for the repair of his vehicle. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.3-Bank is that the complainant has availed the loan of Rs.9 lacs for the purchase of the aforesaid car from from Opposite Party No.3-Bank and outstanding amount of the complainant from loan account is Rs.7,90,793/- overdue amount is Rs.58,217/- and the complainant is liable to pay this amount to Opposite Party No.3-Bank. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3-Bank qua the complainant as Opposite Party No.3-Bank is entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount from the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got his vehicle Hyundai Fludic Verna Car bearing RC No.PB-02X-4848, which he purchased by taking financial assistant of Rs.9 lacs from Opposite Party No.3-Bank, insured with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide cover No.32645301 dated 16.10.2013 Ex.C7 for the period commencing from 19.10.2013 to 18.10.2014 with IDV of Rs.8,52,000/-. Said car met with an accident on 6.6.2014. The matter was reported to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 immediately. The vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre of Hyundai Agency i.e. Novelty Hyundai, Amritsar who had given the estimate of loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 7,44,000/-vide assessment sheet Ex.C12 to Ex.C16. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appointed Sh.Barjinder Singh, Surveyor for the assessment of the loss who vide his report Ex.Op1,2/3 submitted that the car is repairable and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,80,752/- less salvage i.e net payable Rs.3,07,437/-. The surveyor as well as Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 wrote letters dated 31.7.2014 (Ex.OP1,2/4), letter dated 9.8.2014 (Ex.Op1,2/6), letter dated 25.8.2014 (Ex.OP1,2/8) and e-mail dated 30.8.2014 (Ex.OP1,2/9) requesting the complainant to start the repair of his vehicle and then submit the repair bills so that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 could be able to proceed further i.e. finally settle the claim of the complainant after actual repair of the car. The claim case can not be decided on the estimates. The complainant has submitted estimates vide estimate sheet of M/s.Novelty Hyundai, Amritsar Ex.C12 to Ex.C16 and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have appointed surveyor who has given his detailed survey report Ex.OP1,2/3 stating that car is repairable and estimated total loss amounts to Rs.3,80,753/- less salvage. So, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were justified in requesting the complainant to start repair of the insured vehicle in question and then submit the bills of repair so that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 could settle the claim of the complainant after actual repair of the vehicle. The complainant at this stage is not entitled to claim amount of total loss of the vehicle.
- Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to get repair work of the insured vehicle in question done, from the authorized service centre of Hyundai Company and then submit the actual repair bills to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall decide the claim case of the complainant within one month from the date of filing of the claim alongwith all the relevant papers by the complainant to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 20-08-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
