BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 248 of 2012.
Date of Institution : 17.12.2012
Date of Decision : 1.9.2016.
M/s. Rajendra Public School, Panjuana District Sirsa through its President Dr. Rajinder Singh Sra.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Karnal.
2. Cholamandlam DBS Finance Ltd. above Deep Automobiles, Dabwali Road, 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.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. M.K. Singla, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is running a school at Panjuana and got insured its Bus bearing registration No.HR-57/3418 with the op no.1 vide comprehensive policy No.0008085 w.e.f 2.4.2010 to 1.4.2011 against sum of Rs.8,25,075/- being the value of the bus. The said bus was financed by opposite party no.2. It is further averred that said bus met with an accident on 19.12.2010 with a Bolero Jeep regarding which a case FIR No.104 dated 20.12.2010 for commission of offences under sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC was registered against the driver Gurmail Singh in police station Sadar, Bathinda. The bus was totally smashed in the accident. After the accident, the complainant lodged his claim for total loss. Shri Ravi Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed who had taken into possession all the relevant documents including photographs and also inspected the damaged vehicle and also disclosed that bus is beyond repairs as such it is a case of total loss. Information in this regard was also given to op no.2 and they assured that they would take up the matter of settlement of claim with op no.1. The complainant has been approaching both the ops time and again but till date they have failed to settle the claim. The op no.2 was also requested not to charge interest against the loan but the op no.2 is stressing for the payment of installments. Being under the finance the claim amount was to be directly credited to the loan account by insurer as there was a bank clause in the insurance policy. The op no.1 was bound to settle the claim within a period of one month from the date of submission of the survey report. Both the ops are deficient in service. The op no.1 is liable to pay Rs.8,25075/- as value of the bus alongwith interest and op no.2 is liable to waive interest on the loan amount w.e.f.19.12.2010 till the date of payment of the claim and complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.one lac for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.
2. The opposite party no.1 has filed its reply wherein it has been asserted that complainant has not submitted the complete case to op no.1 to process his claim case despite several demands. The complainant has also not got repaired the bus in question from the authorized workshop despite many requests and letters sent by op no.1 to the complainant and ultimately, the claim case of the complainant has been closed. In the absence of complete documents and repair of the bus, the complainant is not entitled to any claim amount and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate reply and took certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts. It has been submitted that true facts are that in the month of March 2009, the complainant had approached op no.2 for financial assistance for purchase of a vehicle Swaraj Mazda school bus and offered guarantee. Accordingly, op no.2 sanctioned a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant which was to be repaid in 46 equal monthly installments. An agreement dated 31.3.2009 was also executed to that effect. Now nothing is due towards the op no.2 under the loan agreement and complainant has paid the entire loan amount in installments upto 1.2.2013. It is denied that op no.2 has received any intimation regarding accident from the complainant. The remaining contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1 and various documents i.e. loan agreement Ex.C2, copy of statement of account Ex.C3, copy of resolution Ex.C4, copy of verification report of driving licence of Gurmail Singh as Ex.C5, copy of insurance cover note as Ex.C6, copy of judgment passed in case titled as Ved Parkash vs. Gurmail Singh by learned MACT, Faridkot dated 10.8.2011 as Ex.C7, legal notice Ex.C8 and postal receipt Ex.C9, whereas the opposite party no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and loan form Ex.R2. the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The op no.1 has placed on file copy of letter dated 13.6.2011 as Ex.R3, courier receipt as Ex.R4, copy of letter dated 18.7.2011 as Ex.R5 and courier receipt Ex.R6
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
6. The main question of accident of insured bus bearing registration No.HR-57-3418 during the period of insurance is admitted. In so far as deficiency in service against op no.2 i.e. Financer of the Bus in question as alleged by the complainant is concerned, we do not find any substance in the contentions of complainant because op no.2 has categorically averred that complainant has already cleared the loan amount and nothing is due towards op no.2. The op no.2 has also alleged that it did not receive any intimation regarding accident of bus from the complainant. There is nothing on record to suggest that op no.2 was ever informed by the complainant regarding accident of bus. From the statement of account Ex.C3 it is evident that complainant was regularly paying installments of Rs.22,740/- to op no.2 and there is no other correspondence on record between complainant and op no.2 regarding accident of bus. Since there is nothing on record to prove that op no.2 ever took any coercive method and put any pressure upon complainant for recovery of loan amount and complainant was frequently making installments of loan amount, therefore, no deficiency of any kind against op no.2 is proved on record by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any relief from op no.2 regarding waiving of interest etc. from the date of accident in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding intimation of accident to op no.2 and complaint against op no.2 is liable to be dismissed.
7. Now, the matter remains between complainant and op no.1 i.e. insurance company. The complainant claims to have submitted all the relevant documents to op no.1 for settlement of claim and according to him surveyor has also submitted his report but op no.1 has failed to settle the claim. On the other hand, it is the case of op no.1 that complainant has not got repaired the bus in question despite many requests and letters and ultimately, his claim case has been closed for want of complete documents and repair of bus. In this regard, the ops have placed on file letters Ex.R3 and Ex.R5 whereby the complainant was asked to get start repairs of the bus. But we found no substance in the contentions of op no.1 firstly because no surveyor report has been placed on file. The complainant claims that the bus is totally damaged and is beyond the scope of repair and it was also confirmed by the Surveyor. The op no.1 has not placed on file surveyor report for the reasons best known to it. So, an adverse inference is to be drawn against op no.1 and it is to be believed that bus is not repairable. So there is no justification in not settling the claim of the complainant on the ground of not repairing of bus. In this regard we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Sadeev Singh Sandhu and sons Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (1999) CPJ 118.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint qua op no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of surveyor report within two months from today. However, if any document is required from the complainant to settle the claim, Op no.1 can call for the same from the complainant through written letters. Complainant is also directed to fulfill the requirement of the insurance company, if any by submitting the relevant papers at the earliest against proper receipt in order to settle the claim within the stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.2 stands dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 1.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
