Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/360/2019

Anmol Bus service - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Tanwar

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

                                                                                      Complaint No. : 360/2019

                                                              Instituted on     : 13.06.2019

                                                              Decided on       : 13.09.2023

 

Anmol bus Service, 53, AWHO Colony, Amba Bari, S.O. Jaipur, (Rajasthan), through its proprietor Raj Kumar son of Shri Amar Singh.

                                                                                                    ……….………..Complainant. 

 

                                                     Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite New Bus Stand, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)-321001.
2. Indusind Bank Ltd., branch office at Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                       ..…….……….Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 BEFORE:       SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRSIDING MEMBER.

                        SH. DM YADAV, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh. Narender Tomer, Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

                                                   ORDER

 

SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                  Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that the complainant is the owner of a bus (LP1512), chassis no.06653 and registration no.RJ-0PA-1584 and the complainant got insured his bus from the OP after paying requisite amount to them i.e. Rs.47,709/- and the OP company issued a General Insurance Policy No.3373/00342218/000/03 valid from 23.05.2014 to 22.05.2015.  On dated 25.04.2015 when the aforesaid bus was going to Delhi from Nodia suddenly tyre of the aforesaid bus burst and turned turtle and due to this accident bus of the applicant damaged totally.  After that, the complainant informed to SHO of nearest police station i.e. PS Kasna Janpad regarding the accident and the surveyor of the respondent company inspected the spot and assured to pass the claim of the complainant.  Since the surveyor of the respondent company asked to complainant to get repair the same and assured to get pass his claim amount so, the complainant took the aforesaid bus to Tata Motors Limited where estimate of repair of the bus was prepared to Rs.11,60,0002/-.  After the accident, the complainant submitted an application to pass his claim as bus of complainant was duly insured with the respondent company and he visited to the company with the request to get the claim amount  but the respondent company has not pass the claim of damaged vehicle.  On several request of the complainant, the OP did not pass the claim of the complainant then he served a legal notice to the respondent’s company.  The OP company intentionally and deliberately just to harass the complainant and did not pass the claim of the complainant.  Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pass the claim of the complainant amounting Rs.11,60,002/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submission of claim form till actual realization of claim amount and the OPs further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service, physical and mental harassment etc. and further the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                     Opposite party no. 1 on appearance filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action maintainability and jurisdiction. It is alleged that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation, the alleged accident had taken place on 25.04.2015 and one complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Bhiwani was filed on 21.12.2017, which was withdrawn on 05.03.2019, vide which the limitation under section 14 was granted but the limitation before this Hon’ble Commission to file the complaint is only two years and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

                     On merits, it is alleged that repeated requests and reminders by the OP no. 1 and the surveyor, the complainant failed to submit the required documents.  It is wrong that the surveyor of the company has ever assured the complainant to get  the vehicle repaired and to get pass his claim amount.  The complainant never approached to the respondent no. 1 and the surveyor to submit the documents as required by them.   It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action maintainability and jurisdiction.  It is alleged that the complainant has closed the present loan account but two other loan accounts are in default.  The arbitration proceedings were initiated in that loan accounts and award was passed.  The execution of awards pertaining to other two loan accounts is pending in the court, if this Hon’ble Commission allows the present complaint and if any amount is ordered to be paid, the same may be ordered to be paid to the answering respondent to adjust the loan amount in other two loan accounts of complainant .  It is alleged that the complainant had purchased the truck chassis by availing the loan facility from the answering respondent, upon which the bus was made.  The respondent bank cannot adjudicate the process of the claim and all claims under the insurance policy will be released as per the terms and conditions of the policy    It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2   opposite party no. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                  Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Annexure CW-1/A, documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C27 and closed the evidence vide separate statement dated 27.09.2022. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 and closed his evidence vide separate statement dated 15.06.2023.

5.                  In the present case an application has been moved by the respondent no. 1 for leading additional evidence on behalf of respondent no. 1 i.e. Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company on dated 28.8.2023 and the same was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 28.8.2023.  But we have minutely pursed the documents placed on record alongwith this application and other documents placed on record by the complainant as well as respondent no. 2.  Through this complaint the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.11,60000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization alongwith Rupees one lac as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as cost of litigation expenses.

6.                  We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.  The accident took place on dated 25.4.2015 and therefore a complaint has been filed by the complainant before the Permanent Lok Adalat Bhiwani on 21.12.2017 and the same was withdrawn on 5.3.2018.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed before this Commission on dated 13.6.2019.  The main contention of the insurance company is that the complainant has not provided the required documents to the insurance company for the settlement of the claim.  The insurance company further submitted that there is delay of two years in filing the present complaint.  On the ground of limitation, we have perused the documents placed on record with the application filed by the respondent.  The incident took place on dated 25.4.2015 and the insurance company wrote first letter on dated 20.5.2015 and 2^nd letter on 25.5.2015 and final letter was written on 2.7.2015.   The survey report has been prepared by the surveyor on dated 16.7.2015.  Meaning thereby the abovementioned three letters have been written by the insurance company prior to submission of survey report by the surveyor with the insurance company.  As per our opinion, after considering the surveyor report the insurance company decided the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy.  If there was any requirement of the documents at that time, the insurance company should also intimate the complainant but the insurance company failed to perform its duty.  Hence the complaint is well within time.  We have also perused the other documents and assessed the loss in the vehicle in question the vehicle has been got repaired by the complainant and he has placed on record the estimate and bills Annexure C-8 to Annexure C-25.  As per our opinion Annexure C-8 is merely an estimate and not the repair bill, hence could not be considered.  We have considered the bill Annexure C-9 to Annexure C-23, which was issued by different shops from 29.4.2015 to 2.7.2015.  During this period the vehicle of the complainant was repaired by the different technicians and labourers.  We have not considered the bill Annexure C-24 and Annexure C-25 because these bills have been issued by the Kukreja Trading Company on 15.12.2018 whereas the vehicle was repaired during the period April 2015 to July 2015.  So the above mentioned two bills Annexure C-24 and Annexure C-25 could not be considered.  The total bill amount from Annexure C-9 to Annexure C-23 comes to Rs.736831/-.  The model of the vehicle is 2011 and accident took place in the year of 2015 and as per our opinion Rs.130000/- should be deducted on account of rubber parts, glass and metallic parts as well as depreciation value.  So the payable amount comes to Rs.606931/- say Rs.607000/- (rounded off to nearest ten rupees).  Hence the complainant is entitled for the alleged amount.  The perusal of letters dated 20.5.2015, 25.5.2015 and 2.7.2015 reveals that some documents are required for settlement of the claim.

7.                  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the complainant to submit the copy of driving licence of the driver, route permit and fitness certificate with the insurance company within 15 days and thereafter opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.607000/- (Rupees six lac seven thousand only) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.6.2019 and shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)  for harassment and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of submitting the alleged documents by the complainant.

8.                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 Commission.

Dated: - 13.09.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)            (Saroj Bala Bohra)               

   Member.                        Presiding Member,

                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh. Narender Tomer, Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

                    Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                   

Dt:13.9.2023           Member.                   Presiding Member,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                              Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.