BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.455-14

Date of Institution:22-08-2014

Date of Decision:30-03-2015

Gurdeep Singh son of S.Hakam Singh, resident of HM 862, Housing Board Colony, C-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through  Authorized person Sunpreet Singh. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Castle Toyota, ANR Motors Pvt.Ltd.  Authorised  dealer of Toyota Motors, Daburji, G.T.Road, Amritsar through its Managing Director.
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Pvt.Ltd. having its branch office, Burj Punjab Building 3^rd Floor, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Near Bank of India.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajvinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.P.N.Khanna, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurdeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Toyota Innova SUV model KUN40R/GKMDYX on 8.2.2013 from Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that he got the said vehicle registered with vehicle registration authority, Amritsar through District Transport Officer and the vehicle was registered as bearing No.PB02-BV-0313. The complainant got the said vehicle insured from Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.010091954200. On 29.3.2014 when the complainant was away to Delhi and in the intervening night of 28/29-3-2014, said vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the area of Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The complainant gave the information regarding the theft at Police Station, Punjabi Bagh on the basis of which, FIR No. 247 dated 29.3.2014 under section 379 IPC was registered. However, due to the tracker affixed in the car, the said car was traced moving in the area of Sakoti Village, Near Meerut Cantt and the thieves were intercepted and vehicle was recovered at about 3 PM on 29.3.2014. When the said vehicle was recovered, it was fitted with the duplicate Registration NO.DL 4C AE 8682 and the vehicle was partially damaged, but it was in driving condition. On 31.3.2014, said vehicle was got released from the court on spurdari. On 29.3.2014, the information regarding the theft was given online to the Opposite Party No.2 at their Toll Free No.1800 119966. Opposite Party No.2 appointed surveyor for spot survey in Punjabi Bagh Police Station who took the photographs  the vehicle in question. Vehicle in question was brought to Amritsar and was given to Opposite Party No.1 for repair. On receiving information, Opposite Party No.2 appointed their surveyor to assess the condition of the loss of the said vehicle. On physical verification of the vehicle in question, the surveyor of Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that the original chassis number of the vehicle was totally erased by the thieves by using grinder and a fabricated chassis number had been engraved and suggested that the chassis has to be replaced with new one as it has lost its original legal value. The technical expert of Toyoto Innova attached with Opposite Party told the complainant that the complete chassis  has to be replaced and the cost of the same is Rs.125732/- alongwith estimate for the rest of damage caused to the vehicle by the thieves. The reason for the replacement of chassis is that the original chassis number has already been erased and duplicate chassis number has been engraved and in this way, the chassis has been tempered  twice. The Opposite Party No.2 has refused to comply with the directions given by the technical expert of Opposite Party No.1 and rest of the  claim was sanctioned by Opposite Party No.2. If the Opposite Party No.2  does not admit the claim of the complainant and does not allow to change the frame, then the complainant will face complications and harassment at the hands of the police whenever the police will verify the chassis number of the vehicle with the registration book of the vehicle issued by the RTO. The refusal of the Opposite Party No.2 to  admit the genuine claim of the complainant is totally illegal, capricious and uncalled for. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the chassis of the vehicle with new one and also with new VIN plate and labour costs.   Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant sent his vehicle for repair to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 repaired the vehicle in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant intimated the Opposite Party No.2 who appointed surveyor to inspect the loss and submit his report. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed loss amounting to Rs.77659/- only, but did not approve the replacement of chassis of the vehicle. However, Opposite Party No.2 has already paid the amount of repairs amounting to Rs.77659/- to the complainant. So far as the replacement of chassis of vehicle is concerned, it is submitted that the thieves had grinded the original chassis number and imprinted a  fictitious number. As per the Toyota policy, no dealer is authorized to imprint chassis number. Therefore, the complainant was requested to replace the full chassis and with it the Toyota will also provide a new chassis number plate. The Opposite Party No.1 is ready to replace full chassis of vehicle with new  chassis number plate if complainant makes full payment of the same.           While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant, an IRDA licensed independent surveyor Sh.Saranpal Singh was appointed to inspect the loss and submit his report. Said surveyor submitted his report dated 22.6.2014 to Opposite Party No.2 wherein the liability of Opposite Party No.2 was assessed at Rs.77659/- and accordingly, the said amount was paid to the complainant vide cheque  No.606373 dated 1.8.2014. Said amount was assessed after deducting depreciation, salvage amount, excess clause as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The insured vehicle was stolen which was recovered later on by the police authorities. After the recovery of the vehicle, it was found that the chassis number of the insured vehicle was tampered by the thieves and a fabricated chassis number was engraved. The Opposite Party No.2 has processed the claim and has taken the decision as per the terms and conditions of the policy and for the damages which were found  fresh and justified as per the surveyor. Said surveyor has clearly stated that the chassis number embossing on the frame (chassis) is found to be scratched or  tried to fill it with some metal deposition while a forged chassis number has been embossed on the frame of the vehicle and as there was no damage caused to the frame and only re-embossing has to be carried out, therefore it was not carried out.  It is submitted that the identity of the vehicle can be established with the help of FSL report that is provided by Police authorities on proper application by the owner of the vehicle. In view of this, the claim of the complainant has been paid rightly.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar, GM Finance Ex.Op1/1 and documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Mohd.Wasi, Head North Zone claim Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
7. 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 the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant got his vehicle Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration Certificate No.PB02-BV-0313 insured with Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.010091954200 Ex.OP2/5 for the period from 8.2.2014 to 7.2.2015.  In the intervening  night of 28/29-3-2014, said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons  from the area of Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi when the complainant was away to Delhi. Resultantly, on 29.3.2014, the matter was reported to police of   Police Station, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on the basis of which, FIR No. 247 dated 29.3.2014  Ex.C3 under section 379 IPC was registered. However, due to the tracker affixed in the car, the said car was traced moving in the area of Sakoti Village, Near Meerut Cantt and the thieves were intercepted and vehicle was recovered at about 3 PM on 29.3.2014. When the said vehicle was recovered, it was fitted with the duplicate Registration  No.DL 4C AE 8682 and the vehicle was partially damaged, but it was in driving condition. On 31.3.2014, said vehicle was got released through the court on spurdari. The information regarding the theft was given online on 29.3.2014 to the Opposite Party No.2 at their Toll Free No.1800 119966 which was duly received by Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 appointed surveyor who conducted the spot survey of the vehicle at  Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Said vehicle was  brought to Amritsar at the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 for repair. Opposite Party No.2 appointed their surveyor to assess the condition of the loss of the said vehicle. On physical verification of the vehicle in question, the surveyor of Opposite Party No.2 told that the original chassis number of the vehicle is totally erased by the thieves by using grinder and a fabricated chassis number has been engraved and suggested that the chassis has to be replaced with new one. The VIN plate of the vehicle was also missing. After surveying, Opposite Party No.1 gave the estimate of the loss occurred to the said vehicle. The claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 refused to   comply with the directions given by the technical expert of Opposite Party No.1 regarding replacement of the chassis. Opposite Party No.2 sanctioned rest of the claim of the complainant. The complainant submitted that in case the chassis of the vehicle is not replaced, he would face complication   and harassment at the hands of the police whenever the police will check and verify the chassis number of the vehicle with the registration book of the vehicle issued by the competent authority i.e. RTO. The Opposite Party No.2 suggested to the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.1 to re engrave the original chassis number on the same chassis which was denied by Opposite Party No.1 being an illegal act and Toyota Motors is also not recommending to do the same in the service centre as no service centre or authorized dealer is authorized to re-punch the chassis number on the chassis. Opposite Party No.2 has also issued letter dated 29.7.2014 in this regard to the complainant. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 to replace the chassis of the vehicle, but the Opposite Party No.2 refused to get the chassis replaced.    Ld.counsel for the  complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Opposite Party No.2 has paid the amount of repair i.e. Rs. 77659/- to the complainant.  So far as the replacement of chassis of vehicle is concerned, Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the thieves had grinded the original chassis number and imprinted a  fictitious number. As per the Toyota policy, no dealer is authorized to imprint chassis number. Therefore, the complainant was requested to replace the full chassis and the Toyota will also provide a new chassis number plate. The Opposite Party No.1 is ready to replace full chassis of vehicle with new  chassis number plate if complainant makes full payment of the same.         Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that on receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant, an independent surveyor Sh.Saranpal Singh was appointed to inspect the loss and submit his report. Said surveyor inspected the vehicle in question, submitted his report dated 22.6.2014 Ex.OP2/3 wherein the liability of Opposite Party No.2 was assessed at Rs.77659/- and accordingly, the said amount was paid to the complainant vide cheque  No.606373 dated 1.8.2014. Said amount was assessed after deducting depreciation, salvage amount, excess clause as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Said surveyor in his report Ex.OP2/3 has further reported that the chassis number embossing on the frame No.(chassis No.) is found to be scratched or  tried to fill it with some metal deposition while a forged chassis number has been embossed on the frame of the vehicle. He further submitted that  there was no damage caused to the frame and only re-embossing has to be carried out, but it was not carried out. Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that since embossing of chassis number does not impact the working/ change of identity of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.2 processed for an amount of Rs. 77659/- as per the surveyor report and the said amount has been released to the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that  the identity of the vehicle can be established with the help of FSL report that is provided by Police authorities on proper application by the owner of the vehicle. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the vehicle in question Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration Certificate No.PB02-BV-0313  was fully insured with  Opposite Party No.2 for the period from  8.2.2014 to 7.2.2015 vide policy No.010091954200 Ex.OP2/5. On the intervening  night of 28/29-3-2014, said vehicle was stolen from the area of Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi by some unknown persons when the complainant was away to Delhi. The matter was immediately reported to  police of  Police Station, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on 29.3.2014. Resultantly, FIR No. 247 dated 29.3.2014  Ex.C3 under section 379 IPC was registered. However, due to the trackers affixed in the car, the said car was traced moving in the area of Sakoti Village, Near Meerut Cantt. and the police  intercepted the thieves and recovered the vehicle in question at  about 3 PM on 29.3.2014. The complainant also reported the matter to Opposite Party No.2 on the same day i.e. 29.3.2014.   When the vehicle was recovered by the police, it was fitted with  duplicate Registration No.DL 4C AE 8682. The vehicle was partially damaged. However, it was in driving condition. The vehicle was got released from the concerned court on 31.3.2014 on spurdari. Opposite Party No.2 appointed surveyor who surveyed the vehicle and submitted his report Ex.OP2/3 in which he submitted that the  original chassis number of the vehicle found to be embossed and the frame (chassis) is found to be scratched or  tried to fill it with some metal deposition while a forged chassis number has been embossed on the frame of the vehicle. However, there was  no damage caused to the frame except the afore stated. As such, re-embossing of the chassis number is to be carried out by Opposite Party No.1. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 who  repaired the same and submitted the  repair bill. The claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.2 who paid the repair bill to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 77659/- vide cheque Ex.Op2/4. Opposite Party No.1 has categorically stated that as the thieves had grinded the original chassis number and imprinted a  fictitious number on the chassis of the vehicle. As such, chassis of the vehicle requires replacement and there is no other alternative. As per the Toyota policy, no dealer is authorized to imprint chassis number. Therefore, the complainant was requested to replace the full chassis and the Toyota will also provide a new chassis number plate. The Opposite Party No.1 is ready to replace full chassis of vehicle with new  chassis number plate if complainant makes full payment of the same.  The matter was reported to Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 submitted that as their surveyor vide report Ex.Op2/3 has recommended that re-embossing of the chassis has to be carried out, the complainant may approach the forensic laboratory through police authorities who after proper inspection will provide   FSL report vide which the vehicle can be identified, even in the absence of chassis number, so Opposite Party No.2 refused to make the payment of replacement of chassis of the vehicle. Here we do not agreed with this contention of the Opposite Party No.2 because firstly there is no provision as stated by Opposite Party No.1 for re-embossing of chassis number. Secondly, if at all, such re-embossing of chassis number is allowed, then  it would create difficulty for the traffic police as well as general administration because whenever the vehicle in question is checked by the police, which is generally made by the police, the police will not allow the vehicle with re-embossed chassis number to ply on the road presuming it to be stolen/ tempered with vehicle and the complainant had to suffer lot every time whenever the vehicle is checked by the police, rather it will create harassment every time to the complainant whenever the vehicle is taken on the road. Opposite Party No.1 has already stated that there is no provision for re-embossing of chassis number. Moreover, Toyota company  also does not allow its dealer to imprint the chassis number on the tempered with chassis number, on its vehicle. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has stated at bar that there is no other alternative in the present case, except to replace the chassis. Toyota Company is ready to provide full new chassis of the vehicle with new chassis plate with new number which could be fitted in the chassis of the vehicle of the complainant alongwith certificate in this regard from Totota company.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is no other alternative except the replacement of the chassis of the vehicle in question. Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Party No.2 is liable to pay the full payment of the replacement of the chassis of the vehicle of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get the chassis of the vehicle replaced from Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 shall make the payment of the replacement of the chassis of the vehicle with new one.
13. Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to hand over the vehicle to Opposite Party No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to replace the chassis of the vehicle  with new one and also give certificate in this regard to the complainant so that the new chassis could be inserted in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question and thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 shall make the payment of the replacement of the chassis of the vehicle within one month from the date of filing of the claim form by the complainant with Opposite Party No.2, failing which, Opposite Party No.2 shall be liable to pay the amount of replacement of the chassis of the vehicle, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complainant till the payment is made. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.