DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  677

                                                Instituted on:    25.11.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.04.2017

Sonu @ Sohan Lal son of Lali Ram, resident of Shutrana, Tehsil Patran, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Sarvarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its M.D.

2.             Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its authorised signatory.

3.             Mohindra and Mohindra Financial Services Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 through its M.D.

4.             ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Advocate.

For OP Number 1&4 :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.

For OP Number 2      :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For OP Number 3      :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Sonu @ Sohan Lal, 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 one Mohindra Balero Pickup vehicle bearing temporary registration number PB-11-ZJ (T) 8225 from OP number 2 on 20.12.2014 for Rs.5,40,662/-, out of which the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money including charges of tax, RC insurance and obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from OP number 3 and the OP number 3 get four cheques bearing number 209891 to 209894 and further the said vehicle was got insured with the OP number 2 vide cover note number I-32626782 for the period from 20.12.2014 to 19.12.2015.

2.             The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 18.1.2015 on Ghagahar Bridge Near Rambagh, Khanauri and damaged fully in this accident, of which DDR number 19 dated 18.1.2015 was recorded at PS Khanauri and information regarding the same was given to OP number 2, who took the vehicle from the spot at his showroom.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a letter from OP number 1 on 31.10.2015 to submit the documents, then the complainant approached OP number 2, who assured the complainant that all the documents relating to the said vehicle will be handed over to the OP number 1, but till today the OP number 2 did not hand over the documents to OP number 1 and 4. It is further stated that the OP number 3 received an amount of Rs.23,760/- as instalment from the complainant on 26.2.2015 after the accident. It is further stated that the complainant requested OP number 2 to clear the loan which is outstanding against the complainant after getting the claim from OP number 1 and 4, but the OP number 2 refused to hand over the documents and the said vehicle to the complainant, which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

3.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, as the complainant did not submit the documents such as form number 28,29,30, vehicle valuation letter, sale affidavit, foreclosure statement, registration certificate, indemnity bond, vehicle keys, NOC form number 35 and due to the non supply of the documents, the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 31.10.2015. Any deficiency in service on the part of Ops has been denied.  It has been stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention.  On merits, it has been admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the Ops for Rs.5,25,976/- for the period from 20.12.2014 to 19.12.2015.  Further it is submitted that the Ops received the intimation regarding the loss caused to the vehicle on 13.4.2015 with a delay of 84 days and after receipt of the information, Mr. Manoj Kumar surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The said surveyor visited the workshop of OP number 3 wherein the estimate of Rs.3,69,599/- dated 6.4.2015 was provided to the surveyor and the surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,34,436/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Thereafter the complainant was asked to provide documents but the same were not provided and ultimately the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 31.10.2015. Any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable .  On merits, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer. However, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle after raising the loan. The vehicle in question is said to be commercial one. It is stated that the complainant has wrongly stated that the OP number 2 did not submit the documents, whereas the documents were required to be submitted by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant himself had to submit the documents to OP number 1 as the Registration certificate was to be got transferred in the name of the insurance company and other documents required the signatures of the complainant. It is stated that the said vehicle in question was taken into possession by OP number 3 on 9.9.2016 as the complainant defaulted to pay the instalments to OP number 3 as the arbitration proceedings had been commenced between the OP number 3 and the complainant and the said Arbitrator Shri Pulkit Dandona, Sole Arbitrator gave an interim order dated 28.7.2016 to take the possession of the vehicle. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             In reply filed by Op number 3, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question and the OP number 3 advanced the loan for the same.  It has been denied that the OP number 3 got deposited Rs.23760/- on 26.2.2015 from the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 copy of form, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of DDR, Ex.C-7 bill dated 23.12.2014, Ex.C-8 copy of DL and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 4 has produced Ex.OP1&4/1 to Ex.OP1&4/5 documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 to Ex.OP2/10 affidavits and documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1 and closed evidence.

7.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

8.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from Op number 2 after raising loan from OP number 3 and the vehicle was got insured from OP number 4.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was damaged in an accident which took place on 18.1.2015 at about 8.10 AM on Ghaghar Bridge near Rambagh, Khanauri.  After giving intimation to the insurance company, the complainant brought the vehicle in question to OP number 2 workshop for repairs, who prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.3,65,599/- dated 6.4.2015, but the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,34,436/-.  But, the vehicle was not repaired despite the assessment of loss by OP number 2.                

9.             In the present case, it is on record that the complainant did not pay the due instalments to the OP number 3 after the accident, as such, the OP number 3 took the forcible possession of the vehicle on 9.9.2016, but the fact remains that why the OP number 2 took such a long time for not repairing the vehicle in question, whereas the accident had took place on 18.1.2015, despite the fact the vehicle in question was insured with the OP number 4.  It is the case of OP number 2 that the OP number 3 took the possession of the vehicle on 9.9.2016 as the complainant defaulted to pay the instalments on the basis of the interim order dated 28.7.2016 passed by Shri Pulkit Dandona, Sole Arbitrator.  But, the fact remains that why the OP number 2 did not repair the vehicle for such a long time and why the OP number 2 handed over the vehicle to the OP number 3 on 09.09.2016 without any consent of the complainant and even without intimating the complainant. We further feel that there was clear cut connivance in handing over the vehicle between the OP number 2 and OP number 3.   We may mention that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP number 2 on 20.12.2014 for Rs.5,40,662/-  and had also paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money including charges of tax, RC, insurance etc.  Had the Op number 2 repaired the vehicle in time, then there was no question of any dispute and the complainant would have also submitted the documents to the OP number 4 for getting the claim.  The OP number 2 had prepared the estimate for Rs.3,69,599/ on 6.4.2015 and the surveyor also assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,34,436/-, meaning thereby the OP number 4 was liable to pay Rs.2,34,436/- in case the complainant had submitted the required documents, but the same were not submitted to the OP number 4 as the same were not issued by OP number 2.  In the circumstances, we feel that it is the OP number 2 only, who did not repair the vehicle in time and even handed over the accidental vehicle to OP number 3 on 9.9.2016 without any intimation and consent of the complainant. As such, we are of the considered opinion that all this happened due to the gross negligence of OP number 2.  It is worth mentioning here that a bare perusal of the written reply filed by OP number 3 clearly reveals that the Op number 3 has not uttered even a single word that how much amount is outstanding against the complainant on account of loan and the OP number 3 has filed a very evasive reply denying all the allegations of the complainant.  Even the OP number 3 has not accepted taking of the possession of the vehicle in question from OP number 2 i.e. why we feel that the OP number 3 has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed such material facts which were very necessary for just decision of the case.  As such, we feel that the OP number 3 is not entitled to get encashed cheques bearing number 209891 to 209894 of Dena Bank belonging to the complainant allegedly issued to the OP number 3 by the complainant.

10.           Accordingly, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant due to the gross negligence of the OP number 2.  We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses. We also direct OP number 3 to not get encashed cheques bearing number 209891 to 209894 of Dena Bank belonging to the complainant allegedly issued to the OP number 3 by the complainant and return the same to the complainant under proper receipt.

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.   A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 20, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member