DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 351
Instituted on: 23.06.2014
Decided on: 24.03.2015
Darshan Singth son of Shri Lal Singh, resident of Village Nainewal, Tehsil Tapa, Distt. Barnala.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001 through its General Manager and authorised signatory.
2. Indusind Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager.
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Agent/authorised signatory, Branch office Situated at 2463-2464, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh (UT).
4. M/s. Skymark Motors Pvt. Limited, authorised dealer Eicher Trucks & Buses, Village Bhatmajra, Near Madhopr Chowk, GT Road, Sirhand, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) through its Manager and authorised signatory.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri R.S.Randhawa, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.
For OP No.2 : Shri S.S.Ratol Adv.
For OPs No.3&4 : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
K.C.Sharma, Member
Sarita Garg, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Darshan Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a truck bearing registration number PB-19-H-6555 after raising the loan from OP number 2 and as such OP number 2 got the truck insured through its agent from OP number 3 vide policy number 3379/00735335 dated 29.6.2012 which was valid upto 28.6.2013 and the vehicle was insured for Rs.19,58,425/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 3.1.2013 within the limits of police station city Jhajjar, of which DDR number 15 dated 5.1.2013 was got registered. It is further averred that the complainant intimated the OPs number 1 and 3 about the accident. Thereafter the above said vehicle was got repaired from OP number 4 and an amount of Rs.9,67,351/- was incurred on the repair of the vehicle. It is further stated that the OP number 1 and 3 with a mala fide intention sanctioned the claim to the tune of Rs.7,00,563-, out of which an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred in the account of OP number 2 because of OP number 2 is the sister concern of the OPs number 1 and 3 and the amount of Rs.5,00,563/- was offered to be paid to the complainant vide email dated 2.5.2013. It is further stated that the above said vehicle was purchased by the complainant with the sole motive to earn his livelihood, but it met with an accident. It is further stated that due to non payment of Rs.9,67,351/- to the OP number 4 by OPs number 1 and 3, OP number 4 refused to deliver the possession of the vehicle in question. Thereafter the complainant also got served the legal notice through his counsel Shri Preet Mohinder Singh upon OPs number 1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,563/- to the complainant within a period of 15 days, but nothing happened. It is further stated that the complainant could not pay the instalments of loan to OP number 2 as the truck in question was standing with OP number 4. It is further stated that the complainant also filed a complaint before District Forum, Barnala, which was dismissed on technical ground of territorial jurisdiction on 5.9.2013. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.9,67,351/- on account of loss and Rs.4,50,000/- as loss suffered by the complainant due to close of business and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no jurisdiction, that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which require voluminous documents as proceedings before the Forum are summary in nature, that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and that this Forum has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs. It is further stated that on receipt of intimation from the complainant, the Ops deputed Mr. A.K.Sharma, as spot surveyor, who conducted spot survey and submitted his report dated 22.2.2013. It has been denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.9,67,351/- on the repair of the truck. However, it is stated that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.7,00,563/- after deducting Rs.1500/- on account of excess clause and Rs.80,000/- on account of salvage. It is stated that against the assessed loss of Rs.7,00563/- the OPs paid Rs.2,00,000/- to OP number 2 as per request of the complainant as the account of the complainant had become NPA and the balance amount of Rs.4,99,452/- was paid to OP number 4 on 3.6.2013. It has been denied that the OPs sanctioned the loss to the tune of Rs.7,00,563/- arbitrarily or with malafide intention rather the same was sanctioned by the surveyor. The remaining allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been denied.
4. In reply filed by OP 2, it is admitted that the loan was sanctioned regarding the vehicle in question subject to the terms and conditions. The agreement was executed in this respect and the said agreement was duly signed by the complainant and his guarantor. It is stated that the complainant got insured the vehicle himself. It has been admitted that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. However, the other allegations in the complaint are denied by the OP number 2.
5. Record shows that OPs number 2 and 4 were proceeded exparte.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of order dated 11.12.2013, Ex.C-3 copy of order dated 5.9.2013, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-5 copy of email, Ex.C-6 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-7 copy of RC, Ex.C-8 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-9 copy of statement of accounts, Ex.C-10 copy of invoice issued by Skymark Motors, Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-13 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-14 copy of RC, Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16 copies of complaint, Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18 copies of press release and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of statement of accounts of bank, Ex.OP1/2 copy of receipt, Ex.OP1/3 copy of discharge slip, Ex.OP1/4 copy of disbursement detail, Ex.OP1/5 copy of cover note, Ex.OP1/6 copy of policy, Ex.OP1/7 copy of invoice, Ex.OP1/8 copy of letter dated 27.5.2013 and Ex.OP1/9 copy of insurance certificate, Ex.OP1/10 copy of survey report, Ex.OP1/11 to Ex.OP1/13 copies of photographs, Ex.OP1/14 copy of loss assessment sheet, Ex.OP1/15 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of statement of accounts, Ex.OP2/2 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/3 copy of receipt, Ex.OP2/4 copy of legal notice, Ex.OP2/5 copy of loan agreement, Ex.OP2/6 to Ex.OP2/7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.OP2/8 copy of loan agreement, Ex.OP2/9 copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP2/10 copy of agreement, Ex.OP2/11 copy of general power of attorney, Ex.OP2/12 to Ex.OP2/15 copies of postal receipts, Ex.OP2/16 affidavit and closed evidence.
7. We have very carefully perused the complaint, written version of the opposite parties and the evidence produced by the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal for these reasons.
8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant got his vehicle insured from OPs number 1 and 3 and the vehicle in question was financed by OP number 2, bank. It is further admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs number 1 and 3 for the period from 29.6.2012 to 28.6.2013. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 31.3.2013 and damaged and the OPs had offered the claim for Rs.7,00,563/-, whereas the sum of Rs.9,67,351/- was incurred on the repair of the vehicle. Since the OPs had not paid the full amount of Rs.9,67,351/- to the complainant, so the OP number 4 had not delivered the vehicle in question to the complainant and due to this act of OPs, the complainant could not earn and repay the instalments of loan to the OP number 2, as such, the OPs are alleged to be deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has admitted that the vehicle in question was financed by OP number 2, but the same was got insured by the complainant himself and not by OP number 2. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was adjusted in the account of the complainant out of the claim amount of the said vehicle. It is an admitted fact on record by OP number 1 and 3 that the claim was settled at Rs.7,00,563/- as per the survey report, but the complainant has not mentioned this fact in the complaint. The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended further that the full amount has been paid to the complainant and nothing is due towards the OP number 1.
10. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, we find that vide legal notice Ex.C-8, the complainant has admitted that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been transferred by Ops number 1 and 3 to his loan account with OP number 2 and has further sought release of the amount of Rs.5,00,563/-, which was agreed upon by OPs number 1 and 3 vide their email dated 2.5.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5. We have also perused the affidavit of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Manager Legal, Ex.OP1/15, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs.4,99,452/- was paid to the repairer i.e. OP number 4 on 3.6.2013 on the basis of the report of the surveyor. This further corroborates the version of OPs number 1 and 3 that the total amount of claim i.e. Rs.7,00,563/- was admittedly settled by the surveyor and admitted by the complainant himself as per his own legal notice. Further from the document Ex.C-8, it is evident that the same was written for the release of the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,563/- which the OPs number 1 and 3 had not released. So now the version of the complainant for the settlement of the claim for an amount of Rs.9,67,351/- is not tenable as the claim amount has already been settled and paid to the complainant in response to his legal notice Ex.C-8.
11. The complainant has also alleged in the complaint that OP number 2 may not take forcible possession of the vehicle, but the document Ex.C-14 placed on record, which is the certificate of registration of the vehicle dated 12.7.2012 is in the name of Ashwani Kumar Sharma, but the complainant has not placed on record any evidence as to when and how the registration certificate of the vehicle has been transferred in the name of Ashwani Kumar Sharma. As such, we find no explanation from the complainant as to how the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Ashwani Kumar Sharma.
12. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 24, 2015.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(K.C.Sharma)
Member
(Sarita Garg)
Member
