Haryana

Sonipat

CC/329/2015

Pardeep Dahiya S/o Raj Singh Dahiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.116 of 2014                                             Instituted on:02.05.2014                                             Date of order:23.10.2015

 

Smt. Promila wife of Kapil, resident of village and post office Ballah, distt. Karnal.

     …….Complainant

                          VERSUS

1.Bharti Axa Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Ist Floor, The Ferns Icon Survey no.28, Next to Akme Ballt, Dioddane Kundi off.  Outer ring road, Banglore-560037.

2.The Manager, Bharti AXA Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor Bigjos Tower A-8, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi-110034.

3.The Manager, Malwa Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., NH-1, 31^st KM , Kundli, Sonepat.

     ……..Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. Niranjan Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. SC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.1 and 2.

           Sh. Kamal Hooda, Adv.for respondent no.3.

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

O R D E R

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he had purchased Hyundai Car from respondent no.3 on 4.4.2012 and got it insured from the respondents no.1 and 2.  Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 17.7.2012. The respondents no.1 and 2 were informed by the complainant.  The respondents no.1 and 2 were supposed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- towards insurance policy, hence a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid by the respondents, but the respondents no.1 and 2 paid only Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant. Now the complainant came to know that the respondents no.1 and 2 have played unfair trade practice whereby they prepared the documents in order to sell the vehicle to some Assalam son of Ikram of Meerut and the complainant moved an application to SDM Assandh (Karnal) so that the respondents no.1 and 2 may not be able to issue the NOC form the registering authority Assandh in order to transfer the vehicle in question from the complainant on 2.1.2013.  The complainant has requested the respondent to pay the settled amount under compromise i.e. Rs.1,25,000/-, but the respondents did not pay any heed and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement have submitted that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 28.1.2013 as the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident on 17.7.2012 and the claim was intimated to the respondent on 25.7.2012 and it was notice during document verification that the car was not registered with the RTO at the time of loss and registration is valid from 30.8.2012  and the complainant has failed to submit any proof of valid RC at the time of loss .  The vehicle was plying on the road without valid RC on the date of loss violating the Motor Vehicles Rules under Motor vehicle Act.  The respondent no.1 and 2 were allegedly supposed to pay Rs.125000/- besides Rs.1,25,000/- against policy after the alleged sale of the vehicle or that a total amount alleged to be paid by the respondents no.1 and 2 was Rs.2,50,000/- or that the respondents no.1 and 2 allegedly paid Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant after alleged selling of the vehicle or that Rs.1,25,000/- is allegedly being outstanding amount to be allegedly paid by the respondents no.1 and 2 against the insurance claim.  The complainant is not at all entitled to any relief and compensation.

         The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that no relief has been sought by the complainant against the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3 has been dragged by the complainant into unnecessary litigation.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the contents of the complaint, reply filed by the respondents and evidence led by both the parties very carefully and minutely, we find the respondents no.1 and 2 deficient in their services.  The plea of the respondents no.1 and 2 that the car was not registered with the RTO at the time of loss and registration is valid from 30.8.2012 and the complainant has failed to submit any proof of valid RC at the time of loss.

         But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 and observation of this Forum is fortified with the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in case titled as National Ins. Co. Ltd. VGs. Ram Diya, CLT 2015(2) page 543,  wherein it has been held that:-

         Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 39 and 192-Insurance Claim-Registration of vehicle-Theft of unregistered vehicle-Vehicle driven from house to hospital-Theft of vehicle while parked in parking of hospital-Held-At the time of theft, vehicle was not being driven by anyone—Thus, at the time of theft, the respondent was not violating Section 39 of the Act-Held-Repudiation of insurance claim by the insurance company is unjustified.

         Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 39 and 192-Insurance Claim-Registration of vehicle-Theft of unregistered vehicle-Violation of Section 39 r/w 192-Vehicle driven from house to hospital-Theft of vehicle while parked in parking of hospital-Whether the commission of offence under section 192 of the Act prior to the theft would justify repudiation of insurance claim?-Held-No-For the prosecution under section 192 r/w Section 39 of the Act, the complainant could be fined between Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-Denial of the insurance cover running into Rs.620755/- for violation of section 349 of the Act to the complainant would thus amount to imposing a punishment much higher than the punishment prescribed under section 192 of the Act-Repudiation of the claim is not justified”.

         We have perused the written statement filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 and in the entire written statement, nothing is mentioned about the report of surveyor, whereas they have placed on record the report of IAR Surveyors and Loss Assessors (P) Ltd. as Annexure R5. Further as per document Annexure R10, the respondents got signed the settlement of the claim for Rs.1,25,000/- and also got signed the discharged voucher from the complainant.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that nothing was paid to the complainant by the respondents no.1 and 2 as per the settlement.  Due to this, the vehicle is standing in unrepaired condition with the repairer since July, 2012 and the complainant could not get her vehicle repaired due to the reasons mentioned above.  Further more, in our view, since the vehicle is lying with the respondent no.3 in unrepaired condition for the last about three years, at this stage, no fruitful purpose will be served if the respondent no.3 is directed to repair the vehicle in question. The cover note of the vehicle in question shows the IDV of the vehicle as Rs.2,94,250/-.

         The perusal of the case file shows that the respondents no.1 and 2 have placed on record the surveyor report Annexure R-4, wherein the final claim amount was assessed as Rs.1,80,361/- and it is also mentioned that “We have settled the claim with the insured on repair cash loss of Rs.1,25,000/- with salvage retained by the insured.  Pay to insured Rs.1,25,000/-  From this report, it appears that the vehicle was damaged extensively to the extent of more-than 60%.

         But it is very sorry state of affairs that the said settled amount was also not paid by the respondents no.1 and 2 to the complainant. In our view, there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- in lumpsum after deducting approximately Rs.40,000/- from IDV of the vehicle, to the complainant and the complainant is also directed to get transfer the RC of the vehicle in question in the name of the respondents no.1 and 2.  The respondents no.1 and 2 are directed to collect the vehicle in question from the respondent no.3.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1&2.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

Announced:23.10.2015