District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.630/2021.
Date of Institution: 07.12.2021.
Date of Order: 02.12.2022.
Kavi Saini son of late Shri Nain Singh Saini resident of House No. D-8 Village Ajronda, Sector-15A, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-17, First floor, Sector-16, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance company Ltd., 12th floor, Tower-T, Global Business- Park Gurugram Road, Meharuli Gurugram Haryana – 122002.
3. TCS Autoworld Authorized Dealer/Workshop Maruti Suzki India Limited, Sector-6, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. K.S.Rathore , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vikas Bhadana , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 and 2.
Sh. S.S.Rao., AR on behalf of opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the father late Shri Nain Singh Saini of Complainant was the owner of vehicle Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration no. HR-51BX-5625, the said vehicle was insured with opposite Parties no.1 & 2 vide policy no.30011/MI07597821/00/000,. The Complainant was the real son of late Shri Nain Singh Saini expired on 28-5-2020. Leaving behind Complainant as his nominee in the above said policy. Hence now Complainant had stepped in to the shoes of late Shri Nain Singh Saini and was now their consumer as per the laws of the land. The complainant was going in the said vehicle Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration no. HR 51BX-5625 on 14th February 2021 to Alwar, when a canter came from front side being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, in order to avoid direct collusion Complainant tried to save from the same, but the vehicle got hit on the stone lying on the road, which badly damaged the vehicle Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration no. HR-51BX-5625. The said vehicle Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration no. HR-51BX-5625, was then brought to TCS Maruti sector-6 Faridabad, for the repair of damage suffered in the vehicle. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 were duly informed through opposite party no.3 after filing of the claim form by Complainant. The repair work of the said vehicle Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration no. HR-51BX-5625was done and a bill to the tune of Rs.2,69,881.00/ was raised by opposite party no.3. To the utmost surprise of complainant, opposite parties no.1 & 2 refused to make cashless payment of the said bill raised by opposite party no.3, telling Complainant to pay the bill so raised and opposite parties nos.1 & 2 would not pay the same to complainant in any manner whatsoever. The complainant under compulsion paid the said bill to the tune of Rs. Rs.2,69,881.00/- from his pocket. Thereafter Complainant requested the claim form so filled at Maruti TCS be taken into to consideration and the amount of Rs.2,69,881.00/- may kindly be reimbursed, but opposite party no.1 & 2 illegally and arbitrarily having deficient in providing services to my above said client refused to do so. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) reimburse the amount of Rs.2,69,881/- the bill so raised by the opposite party No.3 and paid by the complainant to opposite party No.3 for the repair of the damaged/loss to the vehicle-Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration NO. HR-51BX-5625 .
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that respondent no. 1 herein was a General Insurance Company and it had issued a private car insurance policy No. 3001/172711789/00/001 for the vehicle of the complainant bearing no. HR-51-BX-5625. The said policy was valid for the period from 06.06.2019 to 05.06.2022 and the liability of respondents for own damage covered for the period of one year and strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy. During the tenure of the said policy on dated 14.02.2021, the said vehicle met with an accident at Alwar Rajasthan. The intimation of the accident was given to the respondent insurance company. During the investigation of the claim, the answering respondents had requested to submit the claim documents. However, the complainant himself was not given any heeds and the claim was closed as withdrawn. Therefore due to the act of the complainant, the matter was not considered on merit and the claim was treated as closed. The complainant was duly informed through a letter dated 23.03.2021. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had not come before this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands, The complainant had not disclosed the fact regarding the written consent which was given by one Pramod Saini (brother of the owner of vehicle i.e. Nain Singh Saini, who was uncle of the complainant) on 03.03.2021 for repairing the said vehicle on their own expenses as the cashless claim was rejected by the insurance company. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–ICICI Lombard General Insurance company & Ors. with the prayer to: a) reimburse the amount of Rs.2,69,881/- the bill so raised by the opposite party No.3 and paid by the complainant to opposite party No.3 for the repair of the damaged/loss to the vehicle-Maruti Vitara Breeza having registration NO. HR-51BX-5625 . b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Kavi Saini, Ex.C-1 – Certificate cum policy schedule, Ex.C-2 – Driving licence,, Ex.C-3 – Cash bill, Ex.C-4 – Invoice, Ex.C5 (colly 1 to 13) – Original for recipient/duplicate for transporter/triplicate for supplier, Ex.C-6 – Original for Recipient/Duplicate for Transporter/Triplicate for supplier, Ex.C-14 – legal notice, Ex.C-15 to C-17 – postal receipts.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rohan Mishra, Manager legal of respondent insurance company having its one of the offices at 4th floor, Red Fort Capital, Parsvnath, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, Ex. R-1 – Certificate cum policy schedule, Ex.R-2 – letter dated 23 May, 2021 regarding the claim is being treated as withdrawn and is being closed.
As per the evidence of Opposite party No.3, Ex.RW3/A – affidavit of Son u Sharma, Authorized Representative for opposite party No.3 i.e TCS Autoworld., Ex.R3/1 – letter dated 03.03.2021 written by Parmod Saini to TCS.
7. As per Ex.R-1, the opposite party issued a private car insurance policy bearing No 30011/MI07597821/00/000 for the vehicle of the complainant bearing No. HR-51-BX-5625 (i.e. Maruti-Vitara Brezza LDI) valid from 06.06.2019 to 05.06.2019. On 14.2.2021 the said vehicle met with an accident at Alwar Rajasthan. The intimation of the accident was given to the opposite party insurance company on 18.2.2021. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had requested the complainant to submit the claim documents. But the complainant was not given any heed therefore, the claim was treated closed as withdrawn vide letter dated 23.03.2021 Ex.R2. The complainant has no insurable interest over the vehicle as the owner/insured of the vehicle late Shri Nain Singh Saini has already expired on 28.05.2020 and the complainant fails to endorse his name over the policy hence as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim is not payable.
Counsel for the complainant has placed on reliance the following authorities:
(i) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Versus Mohd. Arshad passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 481/2018 decided on 04.05.2021.
(ii) United India Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in appeal (civil) No. 6277 of 2004 decided on 24.09.2004.
Ratio of these authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions as well as the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that as per the Motor Vehicle Act, this complaint is not maintainable because the name of the vehicle in question is not registered with the insurance policy within the limitation period of one month . Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 02.12.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
