BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 79 of 2013
Date of Institution : 21.3.2013
Date of Decision : 24.10.2016
Vinod Kumar aged 29 years son of Satvir Singh, resident of Dhani Bhojraj, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & H.O. “Dare House” 2nd Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai- 600001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. M/s Garg Motors, 9 K.M. Stone, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he got insured his vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.HR-23E-2341 with op no.1 through op no.2 vide cover note/ policy no.8810719 dated 23.3.2012 valid from 23.3.2012 to 22.3.2013 and paid the insurance premium of the same. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 6.8.2012 while the same was being driven by complainant and in this regard, a DDR was got registered. The complainant intimated the opposite parties about the accident who directed him to get the repairing work, denting and painting done from op no.2 and op no.1 assured the complainant that payment shall be released directly to op no.2. However, as op no.1 did not make the payment of the entire repairing work etc. to op no.2, therefore, he was forced to make the payment of Rs.12,200/- to op no.2 and as such, op no.1 is liable to make the payment of Rs.12,200/- to the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice upon op no.1 on 24.9.2012 calling upon to release the above said amount of Rs.12,200/- alongwith interest @18% per annum but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written statement asserting therein that there is collusion between complainant and op no.2 which appears from bare reading of complaint. The complainant is not aware that with whom sudden accident occurred and what was the number of the DDR. Both these ingredients are material. The story/sequence of accident is unbelievable and unnatural. The driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and as such the answering op cannot be held liable for any deliberate violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured or his agent. It is further submitted that no information till today has been provided by the complainant to the Executing Office at Delhi who deals with the claim matters. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Op no.2 in its separate written statement asserted that the answering op has just repaired the vehicle which met with an accident and it is dispute between complainant and insurance company. It is submitted that complainant had brought the vehicle to the workshop of op no.2 and the insurance company had provisionally passed the claim to the extent of Rs.31,997/- as informed vide mail. Hard copy of the letter/ mail is attached. The answering op had informed the complainant. However, the complainant asked the op no.2 to carry out the repairs.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C2, copy of invoice of Garg Motors Ex.C3. copy of receipt of amount of Rs.12,200/- Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6 acknowledgment Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of ledger account Ex.R2, copy of e-mail dated 5.9.2012 Ex.R3, copy of invoice Ex.R4, satisfaction note Ex.R5. OP no.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Amit Sharma, Asstt. Manager- legal Ex.R6 and documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R19.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The opposite party no.1 is taking two different contradictory stands. On one hand, the opposite party no.1 has passed the claim of Rs.31,997/- against the bill of Rs.44,229/- of Garg Motors i.e. opposite party no.2 as is evident from their e-mail dated 5.9.2012 Ex.R3 and made the payment of Rs.30,993/- to the opposite party no.2 on 9.11.2012 as is evident from ledger account Ex.R2. But on the other hand, it is even denying the story of accident and has alleged that no such accident took place and then finally the op no.1 sent an e-mail to Sh. Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager with the direction to try to settle the matter at Rs.5,000/- maximum mentioning therein that on 5.8.2012, insured vehicle met with an accident in order to save an animal that resulted in damages to insured vehicle. The invoice of Garg Motors is of Rs.44,229/- and they have paid an amount of Rs.30,993/- to Garg Motors on 8.11.2012 through NEFT and Surveyor assessed the net liability of the company to the tune of Rs.31,243/-. From the said mail it is evident that accident of the insured vehicle has been admitted by opposite party no.1. There are as many as four different survey reports from Ex.R8 Ex.R11 placed on file by the opposite party no.1 and op no.1 in its above said e-mail has relied upon survey report Ex.R8 according to which the net liability of insurer is Rs.31,243/-. However, the repair charges of op no.2 is of Rs.44,229/- and op no.2 has charged an amount of Rs.12,200/- from the complainant as is evident from receipt dated 6.9.2012 Ex.C4 besides payment of Rs.30,993/- to op no.2 by op no.1. There is nothing on record to clarify as to how the complainant was liable to make the payment of Rs.12,200/- to the op no.1 when the accident is admitted by op no.1. The Surveyors of the opposite party no.1 have also not clarified as to how the complainant was liable to make the remaining amount of Rs.12,200/- to the op no.2.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to decide the claim of the complainant within a period of one month after submission of claim form etc. by the complainant who will also submit the same to the opposite party no.1 within a period of one month and thereafter op no.1 will decide the same within further period of one month. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.10.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
