Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/326

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Manjinder Singh Adv.

17 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:326 dated 11.07.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 17.10.2023.

 

Harpal Singh aged 47 years son of Ajit Singh, resident of VPO Basraon, Bhainidarera, Raikot, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 2^nd, 5^th and 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.5, Commercial Center, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, through its Director/Managing Director.     
2. Godawari Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ayali Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hero Motocorp. Vertical, Delhi DO-X, 803/A, 8^th Floor, Tower-C, Konnectus Building, Opp. New Delhi Railway Station, Bhavbhuti Marg, New Delhi-110002, through its MD/Director.     
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kochhar Market, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Director/Manager.
5. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Grand Walk Mall, Ist Floor, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Regional Manager.                                                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Manjinder Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Complaint against OP1 not admitted vide order                                           dated 25.07.2019.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

For OP3 to OP5             :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Hyundai I-20 car bearing registration No.PB-10-GG-7280, which he purchased from opposite party No.2 on 26.05.2017 for Rs.8,30,000/- vide invoice No.SL-104. The showroom price of the car was Rs.7,39,153/- including VAT. The complainant got the car financed from Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ludhiana and has been regularly paying the installments to the bank. The complainant stated that on 17.11.2018 at 10.00 PM he along with his son Amandeep Singh was going to attend marriage of their relative on the said car. The car was being driven by his son Amandeep Singh. After crossing Fouji Chowk, Tinkoni Goniyana Road, Bathinda when they reached near Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda, a cow came in front of the car and in order to save the cow, Amandeep Singh applied brakes due to which the door of driver side suddenly opened and son of the complainant fell out of the car due to which he received some injures. The car struck upon the divider of the road. The complainant suffered grievous injuries and was brought to Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda where he was medically treated. Regarding said incident, two DDRs No.29 dated 18.11.2018 and 21 dated 29.11.2018 were lodged at P.S. Kotwali, Bathinda. The complainant informed opposite party No.4 about the accident and supplied various documents including driving licence of his son Amandeep Singh, insurance policy, RC of the car, ID proof and estimate value of repair of car i.e. Rs.6,30,000/- but opposite party No.4 postponed the mater on one or the other pretext. The complainant further stated that opposite party No.4 and 5 appointed an agent for collecting material regarding the accident and Mr. M.L. Mala, Director, Central Intelligence Officer (Retired), Investigator and Consultant has already given his conclusion report of accident in favour of the vehicle on 16.04.2019.  According to the complainant, at present his car was at the showroom of opposite partyNo.2 from the last seven months since filing of complaint. The complainant approached opposite party No.4 with request to do the needful but to no avail. Even the complainant got his vehicle insured after expiry of the insurance policy. The complainant claimed to have suffer a lot due negligence on the art of opposite party No.3 to 5. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.05.2019 to the opposite parties to which opposite party No.2 to 5 sent a false and frivolous reply. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to get the car of the complainant repaired and to pay all the expenses incurred on the repair of the car. The complainant further prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment along with litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                The complaint as against opposite party No.1 was not admitted vide order dated 25.07.2019.

                   Initially, Sh. Deeak Makhija, Advocate appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of opposite party No.1 but neither written statement field nor any one turned up on behalf of opposite party No.2 despite sufficient opportunities and as such, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.07.2021.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties No.3 to 5 appeared filed written joint statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; lack of jurisdiction; the complaint being barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; concealment of facts and the complainant being estopped by his own act and conduct etc. According to OP2 to 5 the complainant lodged the claim with OP4 regarding damage to his car bearing registration No.PB-10-GG-7280 and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and for assessment of loss. M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services was deputed for investigation of the matter. M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co inspected the vehicle, took photographs, collected documents and submitted motor final survey report dated 29.03.2019 along with documents and also submitted their interim report by assessing the loss of Rs.3,97,500/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. In its report dated 29.03.2019, the surveyor gave the remarks, which are reproduced as under:-

“Remarks:

• As per claim form, the accident said to have occurred owing to hit of the vehicle with the footpath/divider. Whereas, in the police report, it is mention that the vehicle after hitting with the divider, it further hit into another Zen Car and then stopped:
• On physical examination of damages to car from all angles, in our opinion, the said car after hitting with the divider or footpath or after hitting with another car, it might have overturned as the damages appeared on front glass, roof, W.S pillars and on both side of vehicle cannot be attributed only due to hitting with the divider/footpath:
• The investigator failed to delve deep in to above facts for the reason best known to him. There is no statement of anybody found attached with investigation report confirming that the vehicle met with a Zen car nor any substantiation was found given by the investigator clearing the clouds of doubts:
• The insured stated in his statement to investigator that he does not possess D.L. But, we have received a copy of D.L. through a morally spirited person and well wisher of insured on Whattsapp. The same is attached for the reference and review in the interest of the insurer:
• The investigator failed to collect any hospital record or evidence from the concerned hospital about the condition of injured person or if he was under any influence of alcohol:
• Moreover, a surprising aspect of this case is that after his deputation, the investigator must have met the Village Sarpanch and also some other persons in order to collect about the actual driver of the vehicle. Thereafter, the investigator called the undersigned and revealed the facts that Mr. Harpal Singh was driving the vehicle at the material time of accident and confirmed to have gathered some evidences. He also confirmed that there is some pressure put on him by his relatives and friends as the insured is known to them also. But, all these facts/evidences are missing in his report:
• The call recording with the investigator is attached in a CD.
• Till date, the insured failed to initiate the repair of the vehicle, hence we are releasing our independent report to fix the maximum liability of the insurer, if any, arises at any later stage. Our report is in sync with our remarks given in the interim report without any prejudice, hence not repeated again.”

OP3 to OP5 further stated that M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services also submitted their investigation report dated 27.03.2019 along with documents and they gave the analysis of documents and information in their investigation report, which is reproduced as under:-

ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATIONS:

• The cause of accident has been as stated in various documents/statements clearly indicate and prove that your insured has tried to mislead the insurer by stating wrong facts.
• There is one lady Jasbir Kaur W/o. Makhan Singh, a tea vendor operating at the spot, who verbally informed to our representative that only one person was sitting in the car and he was injured and shifted to Delhi Heart & Multispecialty Hospital.
• Our enquiries from the hospital records reveal that on night only Harpal Singh was admitted in the hospital for RSA and hospitalized for 3 days.
• There is no record of Mr. Amandeep Singh S/o. Harpal Singh receiving injuries and or treatment as our door/indoor patient. Therefore his presence with the vehicle is very doubtful and not be believed.
• While checking the hospital records and the admission record, it has been observed that one Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, phone 8140895206 brought Mr. Harpal Singh to hospital and he signed the admission papers, which proves that Amandeep Singh son of Harpal Singh was not present in the hospital at that time.
• There had been a TP loss to a TP car and its occupants and this fact has not been disclosed in the claim form/statements/survey report/ investigator.
• The insured Harpal Singh was having a DL said to have been issued from Gaziabad. On verified it was found to be fake.
• This might have induced your insured to substitute his son as driver by use of fraudulent means thus violating policy terms and conditions.
• Your insured has also misrepresented about cause of accident.”

After receipt of the Final Survey Report along with documents and after receipt of investigation report of M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services, the claim file of the complainant was duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy and after applying the mind by the official of the company, the claim of the insured/complainant was found not payable as per terms and conditions of policy and claim was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 31.05.2019, operative part of the same is reproduced as under:-

“On intimation of claim of accident/damages to vehicle no.PB-10-GG-7280, we deputed M/s. U.P.S Sachdeva & Co, for survey and assessing the alleged loss of the vehicle. The said surveyor did the survey on dated 14/12/2018 and found that said car was being driven by you (Harpal Singh) and not by Amandeep Singh and he also remarked these facts that as per investigator they said car was driven by you at material time of accident, the said surveyor give motor final survey report on dated 29/03/2019.

The Hexa Investigator and Auxiliary Insurance Services also submitted report on dated 27/05/2019 and concluded through investigation that you have given misrepresentation of the material facts and your driving licence was also fake one and you have also done violation of Driver's clause (also contained in the certificate of insurance cum policy schedule) which reads as under:-

Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner' licence may also drive vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of CMVR 1989.

So, you have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also breach the provision of motor vehicle act and motor vehicle, ruling and or not entitled to any compensation. Your case was also minutely scrutinized authority and it found by the co, authority, and it found that you have misrepresented the facts of the case and you are also not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and your claim is repudiated. This is for your kind information and company has no liability to pay the claim.”

OP3 to OP5 further stated that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident. The insured/complainant has also misrepresented the facts of the case and has tried to change the driver. So the claim of the complainant is not payable and same has been rightly repudiated through above said letter dated 31.04.2019 as per terms and conditions of the policy.

                   On merits, OP3 to OP5 reiterated averments made in the preliminary objections and they have denied that there is deficiency of service and also submitted that the complainant has taken false plea and created false story regarding driving of the car by Amandeep Singh. The complainant himself was driving the car the car at the time of accident and he was not having valid and effective driving licence due to that reason he is alleging that Amandeep Singh was driving the car. The driver of car cannot fell out of the car after applying the brake. The driver of the car used to have control over the steering and he always caught hold steering while driving so there is no chance to fell the driver out of the car. The complainant has not given true and correct facts in the complaint. In fact accident took place on 17.11.2018 and DDR No.29 dated 18.11.2018 was got lodged by Sh. Jaswinder Singh son of Mukand Singh in respect of accident and nature of accident. The said DDR No.29 dated 18.11.2018 reveals that car of the complainant bearing registration No.PB-10- GG-7280 struck against another car bearing registration no.DL-3CN-0965 from backside and two other persons received injuries who were occupant in aforesaid another car and said DDR clearly reveals that Harpal Singh received injuries in the accident. According to OP3 to OP5, DDR No.29 was already got registered and facts regarding accident had already been incorporated in earlier DDR No.29, so there was no requirement for registration of second DDR No.21 dated 29.11.2018 by Amandeep Singh with regard to same occurrence. In fact complainant Harpal Singh was driving the said car at the time of accident but he was not having valid driving licence and his DL was found fake. The complainant was well aware that he was not having valid driving licence, so he in connivance with his son Amandeep Singh lodged second DDR by giving incorrect and false information to the police with motive to change the driver. As such, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 13.05.2019. Rest of the allegations denied being wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CB of Amandeep Singh and affidavit Ex. CC of Sh. M.L. Mala ( Retired Deputy Central Intelligence Officer). The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is legal notice dated 22.05.2019, Ex. C2 to Ex. C6 are the postal receipts, Ex. C7 is the copy of RC No.PB10-GG-7280, Ex. C8 is the copy of driving licence of Amandeep Singh, Ex. C9 is the copy of DDR No.21 dated 29.11.2018, Ex. C10 is the copy of DDR No.29 dated 18.11.2018, Ex. C11, Ex. C28 is the copy of Aadhar card of Amandeep Singh, Ex. C12 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant,  Ex. C13 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 26.05.2017 to 25.05.2018, Ex. C14 is the copy of invoice dated 26.05.2017 of Godawri Motors, Ex. C15 is the copy of receipt dated 23.05.2017 of Godawri Motors, Ex. C16 to Ex. C24 are the copies of estimate prepared by Godawri Motors, is the estimate, Ex. C25 and Ex.C26 is the copy of discharge summary, Ex. C27 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 26.05.2018 to 25.05.2019 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP3 to OP5 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Kanchan Bansal, Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office No.3 at Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1  copy of repudiation letter dated 31.05.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of reply dated 11.06.2019 to legal notice, Ex. R3 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. R4 is the copy of legal notice dated 22.05.2019 of complainant, Ex. R5 is the copy of survey report of HEXA Investigation and Auxiliary Insurance Services dated 27.05.2019, Ex. R6 is the copy of photograph, Ex. R7 and R8 are the copies of toll plaza receipts, Ex. R9 is the copy of DL verification report dated 02.05.2019, Ex. R10 is the copy of motor final survey report of U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. dated 29.03.2019, Ex. R11 is the copy of claim form, Ex. R12 is the copy of estimate prepared by Godawri Motors, Ex. R13 to Ex. R17 are the copies of photographs of the vehicle, Ex. R18 is the copy of DDR No.21 dated 29.11.2018, Ex. R19 is the copy of affidavit of complainant Harpal Singh, Ex. R20 is the copy of driving licence of Harpal Singh, Ex. R21 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 26.05.2018 to 25.05.2019, Ex. R22 is the copy of 64 VB enquiry details, Ex. R23 is the copy of interim report dated 30.06.2020 of U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co., Ex. R24 is the copy of intimation for survey of accidental vehicle, Ex. R25  is the copy of DDR No.29 dated 18.11.2018, Ex. R26 is the copy of discharge summary and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

6.                Admittedly, complainant Harpal Singh owner of car bearing registration No.PB-10-GG-7280 sustained multiple injuries in a road side accident on 17.11.2018 in the area of Fouji Chowk, Tinkoni Goniyana Road, Bathinda and he was admitted in Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda in an unconscious state on 17.11.2018 at about 10.15 PM where he remained admitted till 20.11.2018. In the road side accident, the occupants of Zen car bearing registration No.DL-3CN-0965 also sustained injuries and they were also admitted to the same hospital. On the next day i.e. on 18.11.2018, the police recorded version with regard to the manner of accident involving in collision of two vehicles i.e. i2o car No.PB-10-GG-7280  and Zen car No.DL-3CN-0965. Till 29.11.2018, the complainant Harpal Singh after discharge from the hospital did not record his version with regard to manner of the accident. On 29.11.2018 vide DDR No.21, his son Amandeep Singh recorded a statement and claimed himself to be the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant was fully aware of the fact that he does not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that is why he propounded a new story and made his son Amandeep Singh as a driver. Statement of Amandeep Singh with regard to the accident is bereft of any truth or reasonableness. It is difficult to imagine that the driver escaped unhurt while the person sitting besides him sustained grievous injuries and the car was also badly damaged. Natural conduct of Amandeep Singh would have been to shift his father immediately to the nearby hospital and his name must have been reflected in the records of the hospital but instead name of one Sukhwinder Singh is mentioned who had signed the papers at the time of admission. However, the complainant submitted his claim vide claim form Ex. R11, which was duly investigated by OP3 to OP5 through their surveyors and investigators. Further during the settlement proceedings of the claim, the surveyor and the investigator found glaring discrepancies in the facts and circumstances put forward by the complainant at the time of lodging the claim. The investigators as well as surveyors submitted their reports Ex. R5, Ex. 10 respectively. OP3 to OP5 after scrutinizing the claim file of the complainant, repudiated his claim vide repudiation letter dated 31.05.2019, which reads as under:-

“On intimation of claim of accident/damages to vehicle no.PB-10-GG-7280, we deputed M/s. U.P.S Sachdeva & Co, for survey and assessing the alleged loss of the vehicle. The said surveyor did the survey on dated 14/12/2018 and found that said car was being driven by you (Harpal Singh) and not by Amandeep Singh and he also remarked these facts that as per investigator they said car was driven by you at material time of accident, the said surveyor give motor final survey report on dated 29/03/2019.

The Hexa Investigator and Auxiliary Insurance Services also submitted report on dated 27/05/2019 and concluded through investigation that you have given misrepresentation of the material facts and your driving licence was also fake one and you have also done violation of Driver's clause (also contained in the certificate of insurance cum policy schedule) which reads as under:-

Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner' licence may also drive vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of CMVR 1989.

So, you have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also breach the provision of motor vehicle act and motor vehicle, ruling and or not entitled to any compensation. Your case was also minutely scrutinized authority and it found by the co, authority, and it found that you have misrepresented the facts of the case and you are also not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and your claim is repudiated. This is for your kind information and company has no liability to pay the claim.”

So from the above said chronology of facts and circumstances of the case, OP3 to OP5 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.10.2023.

Gobind Ram.