Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/13/2017

Sultan Mohammad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vineet Kumar Chopra

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

                     Consumer Complaint No.  13 of 22.03.2017

                      Date of Decision             :   23.10.2017

 

 

Sultan Mohammad S/o Sh.Salamat R/o Mohalla Pattua Chowk, Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Unit No S.F.2, 261, Lajpat Kunj, 2^nd Floor Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar  - 144001.
2. Sunil Chawla, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Syal Complex, 20 New Rajinder Nagar, Near Kapil Hospital, Jalandhar  - 144001.
3. Kosmo Automobiles, Showroom Cum Workshop of Hyundai, Chandigarh Road, Near Langroya, SBS Nagar, Nawanshahr.
4. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No28, Doddenekundi, Off Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560037.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant   :         Sh.V.K. Chopra, Advocate

For OP No.1,2&4 :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate.

For OP No.3.       :         Ex parte.

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by complainant wherein he alleged that he purchased a car of Hyundai Company from OP-3 (Kosmo Automobiles) and got its delivery through delivery challan dated 28.10.2016, the model of which is EON, variant Era, Colour White, Chassis No.M493535, Engine No.M448824, Key No0479 and fuel to be used in car is petrol.  All the formalities regarding the car purchase including registration of car and insurance expenses were completed between the complainant and OP-3 (Kosmo Automobiles) and after that OP-3 got the insurance of the car done through Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited which is OP-4. The period of insurance is from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017.
2. That on 14.11.2016, the car of the complainant bearing registration No.PB32-V-9234 met with an accident.  As there was no loss of any property and human life so FIR was not got registered and thereafter, the complainant got checked his car from OP No.3 (Kosmo Automobiles) on 15.11.2016 at the premises of OP-3.  The OP No.2 Sunil Chawla, was appointed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the vehicle on 15.11.2016 at the premises of OP-3 – Kosmo Automobiles and it was intimated to the surveyor about the accident and he demanded the documents for claim on 19.11.2016, which was submitted for finalizing the claim.  OP No.1 sent a letter regarding claim on 08.02.2017 whereby OP-1 denied the claim of the complainant.  OP-3 – Kosmo Automobiles got the vehicle repaired on 19.11.2016.  The invoice No.B201602771 showing bill amount of Rs.23974/- for car repairing and the complainant paid the said bill and got his car back from OP-3 – Kosmo Automobiles.  All other OPs adopted Unfair Trade Practice and harassed the complainant without any reason for not paying the repair amount of the insured vehicle and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and accordingly necessity has been arisen to file instant complaint with prayer that complaint of the complainant be accepted and the OPs be directed to pay full amount of car repair i.e. Rs.23,924/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation/damages for mental agony and harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and further be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service OP-3 failed to appear and ultimately OP-3 was proceeded against ex parte.  The OP No.1,2&4 appeared and filed separate joint written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant, taking preliminary objections that at the very outset it is submitted that neither there is any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of answering OPs and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint and as such the present complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  It is further alleged that the insured had not come to this Forum with clean hand and he has suppressed the true and material facts.  The vehicle No.PB-32-V-9234 was not registered at the time of survey and till date insured had not submitted the registration certificate to the surveyor and OP No.1&4.  The insured had informed that vehicle No.PB32-V-9234 was met with an accident on 14.11.2016, whereas, as per repairer gate entry register the vehicle was lying in the workshop from 03.11.2016 till 15.11.2016.  The matter was also enquired from the insured who did not give any reply.  Later on the insured had got the vehicle repaired at his own end and till date no response was received from the insured inspite of repeated reminders over telephone as well as written reminders from the Surveyor and Loss Assessor.  It is further submitted that the vehicle was plying on the road on or prior to 03.11.2016 without valid registration certificate whereby violating the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  On merits, the purchase of the insurance of the car has been admitted by answering OPs.  But all the other  averments made in the complaint have been categorically denied.  Lastly prayer that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and same is liable to be dismissed. 
4. In order to prove the case, counsel for complainant, has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.  Similarly, counsel for OP No.1,2&4, has tendered affidavit of Shivali Sharma Assistant Manager Ex.OP/A and some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 and further affidavit of Sunil Chawla Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1,2&4.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
6. The claim of the complainant is only that he purchased the car of Hyundai Company and same was got insured from OP-4 after making payment of premium and copy of the Insurance Policy placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-3, period of insurance is 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017 but unfortunately on 14.11.2016, the car of the complainant bearing Registration No.PB32V-9234 met with an accident and same was brought to the workshop of OP-3 – Kosmo Automobiles and accordingly, the complainant submitted a claim to the OP No.1,2&4 but the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP-1 without any reason simply on the ground that on the day of accident the complainant was plying the vehicle on the road without valid Registration Certificate and whereby he violated the Motor Vehicle Act and further alleged in the repudiation letter that the vehicle was checked by the Surveyor on 15.11.2016 at Kosmo Automobiles, Nawanshahr and found that as per gate entry, the vehicle was lying in the workshop since 03.11.2016 with mileage of 521 KM and as such the vehicle was not met with an accident on 14.11.2016.  Rather, the same was met with an accident prior to that, the said allegation in the repudiation letter is totally illegal and vague and claim of the complainant is wrongly rejected and further submitted that claim of the complainant may be accepted and the amount as spend by the complainant for repair of the car i.e. Rs.23,974/- be got refunded to the complainant alongwith interest and also pay damages/ compensation and litigation expenses.
7. No doubt claim of the complainant is rejected by the OP and these factum has been alleged in the written reply that vehicle was plying on the road without valid Registration Certificate and further as per gate entry register of the Kosmo Automobiles Workshop, the vehicle of the complainant was lying in the workshop from 03.11.2016 to 15.11.2016 and further some documents were called from complainant but he failed to submit the same documents and in support of these version, the OPs have brought on the file affidavit of Shivali Sharma, Assistant Manager Ex.OP/A and some documents i.e. report of the surveyor Ex.OP-1 and letter sent by the complainant to surveyor i.e. Ex.OP-3 and some photographs Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 and repudiation letter Ex.OP-6 and claim form Ex.OP-7.
8. After considering the relevant documents as well as pleadings of both the parties, we find the factum in regard to purchase of insurance policy from OP No.1&4 is admtited.  Moreover, copy of insurance policy is placed on the file by the complainant which is Ex.C-3 and it is also not in dispute that claim of the complainant was repudiated by OPs vide letter Ex.C-11.  Now question remains only whether the grounds as have been taken in the repudiation letter are true and genuine or not for that purpose we going through the documents placed on the file by the OPs and reached to conclusion that the OPs have not filed any gate entry register wherein it has been shown that the vehicle of the complainant lying in the workshop since 03.11.2016, simply saying that the vehicle lying in the workshop since 03.11.2016 is not believable because the document placed on the file, issued by OP-3 – Kosmo Automobiles Workshop, in regard to repair of the vehicle wherein on the top of the said documents Ex.C-8, the date of entry is mentioned as 15.11.2016 and date of delivery of the car is mentioned as 19.11.2016 so it means that version of the OP is rebutted by the complainant by brining on the file documentary evidence that his car met with an accident on 14.11.2016 and same was brought in the workshop of OP-3, from where, he got the car after repair, but as the Insurance Company has miserably failed to make the payment of repair of the said car.
9. So for the concern, the other objection raised by the OP in the repudiation letter that the complainant was plying the vehicle on road without valid Registration Certificate, this ground of the OPs is not acceptable because a new car was purchased by the complainant and complainant applied for the registration certificate of the vehicle which required to be applied within 15 days from the date of purchase and insurance of the car was issued by the OP No.1&4 without demanding the Registration Certificate and moreover the OP-4 – Insurance Company was well aware that car is brand new and its registration will be got registered from the Registration Authority and accordingly the complainant is required to apply for registration certificate within 15 days from the date of purchase and moreover, the objection of the OP is not correct because the accident took place on 14.11.2016, whereas the Registration Certificate was registered on 11.11.2016 as date put on the said Registration Certificate, the copy of the same is Ex.C-6. So it is cleared that the objection raised by the OP is not acceptable.
10. Further, the OPs took a plea in a written reply that documents so demanded by the Surveyor not supplied by the complainant, if the demanded documents not supplied by the complainant then this objection has to be raised in the repudiation letter but no such objection has been taken, if so documents demanded by Surveyor through Ex.C-11, the same as per version of the complainant has already been supplied whatsoever available.  So accordingly we reached to conclusion that claim of the complainant is illegally and wrongly repudiated by OP-1 and as such we find that the complainant is entitled for relief.
11. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1&4 are directed to pay the cost of repair of vehicle i.e. Rs.23,974/- to the complainant and also directed to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
12. Entire payment be made by the OP No.1&4 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 23.10.2017                                                         

 

                                     

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President