Haryana

Karnal

CC/261/2015

Rajesh Kumar S/o Kuda Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS genral Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Sachdeva

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.261 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 21.10.2015

                                                         Date of decision:19.01.2018

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Kuda Ram resident of village Badhedi P.O. Khanpur Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. The Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance co. Ltd., 338, Mugal Canal, Basement, Canara Bank, Karnal.

2. The Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. SCO 222, IIIrd Floor Sector-12, Upstair Coffee Café Day Karnal.

                                    

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Deepak Sachdeva Advocate for complainants.

                Shri Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased the vehicle i.e. Truck (open body) bearing no.HR45A-9932. For purchase of the said vehicle he took a loan of Rs.7,60,000/- from OP no.2 and at the time of purchase the OP no.2 has made the insurance continuously from 2012 from OP no.1 vide cover note no.3360526 valid upto 22.2.2016. In the said policy, it is clearly mentioned that the value of chasis and body is Rs.9,00,000/-. In the month of August, 2015 the said vehicle met with an accident and totally damaged. After the accident the said vehicle was taken to Luxmi Motors, Karnal and Luxmi Motors has given estimate for repair of Rs.2,12,534/-. The surveyor Alok Rathee came for inspection and after inspection demanded Rs.20000/- as gratification and when he refused to pay the same then surveyor said that he made a negative report of the vehicle and also refused the claim against the said vehicle. Due to the said accident and due to non-payment of claim amount the vehicle was standing with Luxmi Motors, Karnal and he suffered loss day by day and also unable to earn his livelihood. He served a legal notice dated 10.9.2015 to OPs in that regard but in vain. He borrowed money from relatives and friends pay the repair amount of Rs.2,33,889/- to Lumxi Motors, Karnal. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties; deficiency in service and concealments of true and material facts. The true facts are that after receiving intimation of loss from complainant, for the assessment of loss, surveyor was appointed by the OP no.1 and as per Surveyor report, vehicle has suffered loss of Rs.1,30,924.5. The complainant did not submit the requisite documents to the OP no.1. OP no.1 sent letters dated 1.9.2015, 15.9.2015, 29.9.2015 for submission of requisite documents. The claim of the complainant pending for want of claim form, claim discharge voucher, satisfaction-cum-discharge voucher, bills of repairs, policy copy and insured signature proof. It is also conveyed to the complainant to please start works of repairs with cabin repair and provide the vehicle for final inspection and repair bills but complainant neither submitted the documents after sufficient reminders nor replied these letters. Moreover, license of driver Vikram, who was driving the vehicle at the time of loss was not valid and effective and he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle in question. So, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written statement stating therein that complainant purchased vehicle in question after taking loan of Rs.7,60,000/- from OP no.2, which was to be repaid in 42 equated monthly installments. The complainant stopped paying the EMIs without any rhyme or reason. The name of OP no.2 is marked in the column of hypothecation of registration certificate of the vehicle as well as in the insurance cover note and as such, the payment, if any insurance claim is allowed to the complainant against the insurance claim of the vehicle in question by the OP no.1 is liable to be credited in the default loan account of the complainant.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 16.1.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Anirudh Deveraj Ex.RW-1/A, affidavit of Rakesh Talwar Ex.RW-2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 4.9.2017.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             From the pleading and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question i.e. Truck bearing registration no.HR 45A 9932 and the same was insured from OP no.1 vide cover note no.3360526 valid upto 22.2.2016 and the complainant had taken the loan of Rs.7,60,000/- from OP no.2. It is also not disputed that on 10.8.2015 the said vehicle met with an accident and on receipt of information, the OP no.1 has appointed Shri Alok Rathi as surveyor for the assessment of the loss.

8.             According to the complainant the surveyor demanded Rs.20000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification and when the complainant refused to do so, the surveyor made a negative report. It is further case of the complainant that he got the truck repaired from Luxmi Motors Karnal who charged Rs.2,33,889/- for the repair of the vehicle in question. It is further alleged by the complainant that he requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but the OPs have not paid the same.

9.             According to the OP no.1 the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.130924.5/- and the complainant himself was at fault as he did not submit the requisite documents inspite of the letters dated 01.09.2015, 15.09.2015 and 29.9.2015. It is further case of the OP that the claim of the complainant remained pending for want of claim form, claim discharge voucher, satisfaction-cum-discharge voucher, bills of repairs, policy copy and insured signature proof. It is also contended by the OP no.1 that by abovesaid letters it was conveyed to the complainant to start works of repairs with cabin repair and provide the vehicle for final inspection with repair bills but the complainant has neither submitted the documents mentioned in the abovesaid letters nor replied these letters. It is further contended that the driving licence of driver Vikram, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not valid and effective.

10.           The OP no.2 has not disputed the loan taken by the complainant and further stated that the insurance claim, if any, is to be paid by the OP no.1.

11.           The OP no.1 has produced the surveyor report as Ex.R1. On perusal of surveyor report, it is clear that the driving licence of Vikram was found valid. The OP no.1 has not produced any such evidence vide which it can be said that the Driving Licence of Vikram was not valid and effective. So the contention of OP no.1 that driving licence of Vikram was not valid and effective has no force. According to surveyor report Ex.R1, it is also clear that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,31,924.5/- and after deducting the compulsory excess of Rs.1000/-, the said amount comes to Rs.1,30,924.5/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor assessed the salvage value also to the tune of Rs.1,30,924.5/- and net liability of the insurer has been shown as Nil. This finding of surveyor that the salvage value is Rs.1,30,924.5/- is totally wrong and not acceptable because the same cannot be equal to the new parts. This finding of the surveyor gave force to the contention of the complainant that the surveyor had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. So, the report of surveyor regarding salvage value is not accepted as correct and the same to that extent is hereby set aside. It is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle in question was of 2012 Model, therefore, there must be some depreciation. According to the complainant, he spent Rs.2,33,889/- on the repair and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation after deducting the depreciation. The surveyor has assessed the loss after the depreciation is comes to Rs1,31,924.5/- which seems to be correct. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will be met, if we allowed Rs.130925/-as assessed by the surveyor after deducting compulsory excess.

12.           It is pertinent to mention here that the OP no.1 has produced on the file the letters dated 1.9.2015, 15.9.2015 and 20.9.2015 as Ex.R-2 to Ex.R4 and in all these letters, the OP no.1 demanded from the complainant claim form, claim discharge voucher, satisfaction-cum-discharge voucher, bills of repairs, policy copy and insured signature proof. The complainant has not produced any such evidence from which it can be proved that the above documents have been supplied by the complainant to the OP no.1. These documents are required by the OP no.1 for settling the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is also at fault in not supplying the abovesaid documents to OP no.1.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.1,30,925/- to the complainant subject to the condition that the complainant will submit the documents to the OP no.1 as demanded by OP no.1 in letter dated 29.9.2015 Ex.R-4. It is hereby made clear that the complainant will submit the requisite documents within 30 days and after the submission of documents by complainant, the order will be complied with within 30 days by OP no.1 failing which the complainant is entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the order. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.1.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member                 Member