Haryana

Karnal

CC/625/2022

Suman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwant Kadiyan

06 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.625 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.07.11.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:06.06.2024

 

1. Suman wife of late Shri Vinod.
2. Vishal Sharma son of late Shri Vinod.
3. Sumit Kumar son of late Shri Vinod all resident of village Didwada, tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

 

                                                                   …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1. Cholamandlam MS. General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO no.2463-2464, 2^nd floor, Sector 22C, Chandigarh-160022 through its Branch Manager.
2. P.P. Auto Motive, NH 119/4, G.T. Road, opposite Hotel New World, Karnal through its Manager.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Kulwant Kadiyan, counsel  for the complainants.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte (vide order dated 23.11.2022)

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 Mr. Vinod (since deceased) purchased a vehicle i.e. Bolero Pick-up Model BMT Plus PS 1 2T, bearing registration no.HR-56C-5976 from the OP no.2 on 18.04.2022 by paying total amount of Rs.7,90,400/- i.e. Rs.7,51,000/- for sale value and Rs.9780/- for registration charges and Rs.29,654/- for insurance charges. Vinod Kumar had requested the OP no.2 that he will get registered the vehicle himself because his address is of Jind District so the concerned RTA is Jind but OP no.2 said that without depositing registration charges and insurance charges, he cannot take the vehicle out the showroom/agency. Thereafter, the formalities of RC of the said vehicle were completed by Vindo Kumar at the instruction of OP no.2 and all necessary documents were supplied by Vinod Kumar. At this time, Vishal Sharma i.e. complainant no.2 was accompanying the deceased Vinod Kumar. Complainant no.2 alongwith his father visited the OP no.2 several times to collect the RC of said vehicle but OP no.2 did not supply the RC of the said vehicle timely.

2.             It is further alleged that unfortunately on 30.06.2022, when Vinod Kumar was driving the said vehicle and going to Jalmana from Jundla meantime when he was crossing Alwala Bus Stand suddenly a Roze (wild animal) came out on the road from the nearby field due to which the vehicle got unbalanced and struck with a tree. In this accident said Vinod Kumar received multiple, serious and grievous injuries on vital parts of his body. 112 number was dialed and the police got himd admitted in KCGMCH, Karnal. Thereafter, on same day Vinod was shifted to Virk Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Karnal where he remained admitted from 30.06.2022 to 16.07.2022. On 17.07.2022, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment, where he died on 23.07.2022. In the said accident, the vehicle Bolero was completely damaged and after spot survey done by the surveyor, it was shifted to the workshop of OP no.2 for repair. After performing the last rites of abovesaid Vinod, the complainants contacted OP no.2 for taking delivery of the repaired vehicle because the same was fully insured with the OP no.1 but OP no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 14.10.2022 on the false and frivolous ground and the vehicle was lying in the same condition in the workshop of OP no.2 since four months.  The complainants are poor persons and after untimely death of Vinod Kumar they have no other source of income and the said vehicle was  financed from Indusind Bank Ltd. and as such they have suffered a heavy burden of interest on the finance loan. Now due to negligence on the part of the OPs the complainants are unable to pay the loan installments. Complainants requested the OP no.1 several times to the OP no.1 to repair the vehicle in question or release the IDV value i.e. Rs.7,13,450/- in favour of complainants but OPs did not pay any heed on the genuine request of the complainants. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainants have suffered huge financial loss, mental pain, agony and harassment. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on receipt of intimation of claim, the OP appointed an independent investigator namely Perfect Investigator to investigate the matter and collect the documents. The appointed investigator submitted its independent report alongwith the documents. On perusal of the report, it is revealed that at the time of accident in question insured Vinod was driving the vehicle. During investigation, investigator has recorded the statement of insured’s son, who confirmed in writing that at the time of accident his father was driving the vehicle. Investigator also contacted the other persons and as per investigation report at the time of accident insured Vinod was driving the vehicle and not Gorav. By implanting/changing the driver as Gorav in place of insured-Vinod leads to Misrepresentation of facts, which amounts to gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that a brand new vehicle was delivered to the insured on 18.04.2022. The vehicle was delivered with temporary registration number which was valid upto 17.05.2022. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 30.06.2022. Based on documents, statement and facts on record, the vehicle was not registered permanent or temporary at the time of  alleged accident, while it was being using in public place against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and process of law. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 mandates that no person shall drive or permit anybody to drive the vehicle on public place unless it has certificate of registration. The insured did not obtain permanent registration certificate after expiry of temporary registration. It is further pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The vehicle was hypothecated as admitted by the complainants but complainants have not impleaded the financer as a party in the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 23.11.2022 of the Commission.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of Suman Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Vishal Sharma Ex.CW2/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of repudiation Ex.C2, copy of receipt dated 18.04.2022 Ex.C3, copy of RC Ex.C4, copy of driving licence of Vinod Ex.C5, copy of DDR Ex.C6, copy of death certificate Ex.C7, copy of aadhar card of Vinod Kumar Ex.C8, copy of aadhar cards of Suman, Vishal and Sumit Kumar Ex.C9 to Ex.C11, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C12, postal receipt Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence survey report dated 11.03.2024 Ex.C14, loan closed detail Ex.C15, copy of letter of OP no.2 dated 26.09.2022  Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on 12.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Gupta, Deputy Manager Legal Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Rajesh Chhaabra, Surveyor Ex.RW2/A, affidavit of Shubham Grover Investigator Ex.RW3/A, copy of claim form Ex.R1, copy of survey report Ex.R2, copy of investigation report Ex.R3, copy of statement of Sahil Singh Ex.R4, copy of driving licence of Gorav Ex.R5, copy of delivery challan of P.P. Automotive Ex.R6, copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration Ex.R7, copy of terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.R8, copy of letter dated 09.09.2022 Ex.R9, copy of letter dated 14.10.2022 Ex.R10 and closed the evidence on 12.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

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

10.           Learned counsel for the complainants, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that on 18.04.2022, Vinod Kumar (since deceased) purchased the vehicle in question from the OP no.2 and got insured from OP no.1. On 30.06.2022, the said vehicle met with an accident and in the said accident Vinod Kumar succumbed to injuries. The intimation was sent to the OPs. The vehicle in question is lying with the OP no.2 from the date of accident till date. The complainants submitted all the claim documents to the OP no.1. Complainants approached the OP no.1 several times and requested to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim and repudiated the same on the false and frivolous ground. He further argued that the loan of the vehicle in question is fully paid and in this regard complainants have placed on file loan closed detail Ex.C15. He further argued that if there is any delay for Registration Certificate, it is on the hands of the OP no.2 not the complainant as complainant has paid the entire Registration Charges to the OP no.2 at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued the temporary registration of the vehicle was valid from 18.04.2022 to 17.05.2022, the accident happened on 30.06.2022 and at the time of accident, vehicle was not having either permanent registration number or temporary registration number, which amounts to gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy and violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that Vinod Kumar died in the said accident. It is also admitted that the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle is Rs.7,13,450/-.

 14.          The claim of the complainants has been denied by the OP no.1 on the ground that at the time of accident, deceased was not having either permanent registration number or temporary registration number of the vehicle in question.

15.           As per version of the OP no.1 at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was not having the registration certificate with any RTO and it is violation of the terms and conditions of Motor Vehicle Act. Per contra, as per version of the complainants, Vinod (since deceased) has deposited the Registration charges to the OP no.2 and it is the OP no.2, who has not got registered the vehicle in question with the RTO concerned. To rebut the said plea taken by the complainant, OP no.2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the plea taken by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Furthermore, as per government policy, registration charges of the vehicle have been paid by the purchaser to the dealer at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Thus, we are of the considered view that the delay in registration of the vehicle with the concerned RTO is on the part of the OP no.2 and for that complainants cannot be sufferers. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16.           The surveyor of the OP no.1 has assessed the net liability to the insured to the tune of Rs.3,99,876/-. Complainant also got surveyed the vehicle in question from Mahesh Kalra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who prepared report Ex.C14 and assessed the net liability on total loss basis Rs.5,02,000/-. As per insurance policy the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.7,13,450/-. Thus, the vehicle in question does not fall in the category of total loss. Hence, complainants are entitled to Rs.5,02,000/- out of which  Rs.3,76,500/- (75% of the loss assessed by the surveyor of the complainant) and remaining amount of Rs.1,25,500/- will be paid by the OP no.2 to the complainant alongwith compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.                

17.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,02,000/-(out of which Rs.3,76,000/- will be paid by the OP no.1 and Rs.1,25,500 will be paid by the OP no.2) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07.11.2022 till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them and Rs.11,000/-for the litigation expenses in equal share. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.06.2024                                                                   

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                        Member                             Member