Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 474.
Instituted on : 16.09.2019
Decided on : 31.01.2024.
Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Munshi Ram r/o village ShadipurDistt. Rewari now residing at ward no.1, Dev Nagar Sampla Tehsil SamplaDistt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Branch Manager/Office In-charge, CholaM.S.General Insurance Company Ltd., Anand Plaza, 2nd floor, Near Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
- Cholamandalam Investment and finance Company Ltd., SCO-9, 2nd Floor, Brass market, Rewari.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.R.K.Nanakwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a car bearing registration number HR-47-C-9260 and the same was having IDV Rs.504476/-. Complainant got insured his car from the opposite party vide policy no.3368/00846713/000/01 for the period of 07.08.2016 to 06.08.2017. It is further submitted that on 06.05.2017 Satish Kumar was driving the car on a normal speed and was going from Dwarka to his village ShadipurDistrict Rewari. When he reached in between the village Ahmadpur to Bhuriawas, suddenly a Neelcow came in front of the car and after best efforts of the driver, he could not avoid the accident and the car was badly damaged in the accident. The insurance company was duly informed about the accident and the officers of the company appointed a surveyor who surveyed the vehicle on the spot and told the complainant to bring the car in the workshopsituated at Plot no.106, Sec. 36, Pace City-1, Gurgaon-122201. They also assured the complainant to deliver the car on dated 06.08.2015 but despite repeated requests, vehicle of the complainant has not been repaired by the insurance company. Complainant also served a legal notice to the opposite party on 09.05.2017 and after that date the car was in the custody of the company but the same has not been repaired. The vehicle is standing at Plot no.106, Sec. 36, Pace City-1, Gurgaon-122201 for the last 2 years i.e. from 09.05.2017. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.397850/- on account of damage of the vehicle, Rs.360000/- salary of driver which was paid by the owner to the driver, Rs.100000/- as mental harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 06.05.2017 to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its written statement has submitted that the insured has totally moulded the true facts of the case and filed a false complaint even after receiving the claim amount after due discussion settlement without any pressure. In the present case the insured vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2017 and got badly damaged. Intimation to the insurance company was made on very next day i.e. 07.05.2017 and insured had submitted the estimated loss with the tune of Rs.397850/- but the claim was closed due to non submissionof required documents even after sufficient reminders. Thereafter Rs.110000/- was paid towards the loan account of insured vide dated 22.02.2018 as per consent of insured. The consent letter duly notarized dated 15.02.2018 was given by the insured and hence no further liability attached to the insurance company. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite parties did not appear on dated 14.06.2023 and were proceeded againstexparte vide order dated 14.06.2023 of this Commission
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence on 28.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. In the present case, memo of appearance was filed on behalf of both the parties but the written statement was filed only on behalf of opposite party no.1. In the present case the vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2017 and as per complainant he brought his car in the workshop of the company on dated 09.05.2017. The complainant also placed on record the estimated cost of repair of the vehicle as Ex.C1 total amounting to Rs.397850/- and other documents. Ex.C11 and Ex.C12 are issued by the respondent no.2. Ex.C11 is the letter of NOC andEx.C12 is form no.35 which was also issued by the respondent no.2 against the vehicle HR47C9260. We have minutely perused the documents and written statement filed by opposite party No.1. As per respondent no.1 the insured vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2017 and the insurance company received an intimation regarding this accident. The insured has submitted the estimated loss in the vehicle in question as Rs.397850/-. Thereafter on completion of formalities by the complainant, the insurance company paid an amount of Rs.110000/- to the insured towards his loan account on dated 22.02.2018 after obtaining the consent from the complainant. The above mentioned fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in his complaint or in the affidavit placed on record by the complainant himself. Moreover he placed on record the NOC and form 35 before this Commission on dated 28.06.2023. Meaning thereby the loan account has been closed by the complainant after making the remaining payment on dated 09.07.2020 and as per respondent no.1 they have already transferred the amount of Rs.110000/- in the loan account of complainant on 22.02.2018. So it was within the knowledge of complainant that the amount of Rs.110000/- had already been paid by the insurance company and remaining amount has been deposited by him at the time of obtaining NOC but these facts have been concealed by the complainant in his complaint which has been filed before this Commission on 16.09.2019. Moreover the car was parked for repair at Supreme Hyundai, whereas complainant has placed on record an estimate Ex.C1 issued by one Javed Car. The complainant failed to place on record any estimate issued by Superon Hyundai. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 as the amount has already been paid by the respondent no.1. Hence the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
