Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 405.
Instituted on : 22.09.2020
Decided on : 14.02.2023
Satish Kumar Kajal, age 56 years s/o Sh. Sahdev Singh
Kajal R/o H.No.403/8, Ward No.29, Tilak Nagar, Rohtak.
...................Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance co. Ltd. Regd. Office at IFFCO Sadan C01, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-1100017 through its Managing Director.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd, Office at Delhi Road, Near Bajrang Bhawan Mandir, Rohtak through is Manager.
- Lohchab Motors, Mahindra Authorized Service centre, Hisar Road, 7 KM Stone, Village Bahu Akbarur, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.
....……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a vehicle Mahindra XUV 500WB AWD bearing Regn.No.GA03P4980 and the above said vehicle is insured with respondent no.1 lastly for the period 30.10.2019 to 29.10.2020 having policy no.MB173100. The alleged vehicle met with an accident on 01.02.2020 in the area of Outer Bye-Pass Link Jind Road, Rohtak and the vehicle was badly damaged in the said accident. At that time the vehicle was being plied by the son of complainant who is having a valid driving license. Due intimation was given to the respondents and ultimately the vehicle was brought at the workshop of Lohchab Mahindra, Rohtak who is authorized distributor and service provider of Mahindra Vehicles. The surveyor was appointed for inspection of the said vehicle and the estimate of the repair was prepared and the loss was assessed as Rs.1010864/- vide claim no.37D681755 but the respondents have not given approval for the repair of the same and the matter has been delayed by the respondents under one pretext or the other without their being any plausible reason or cause without their being any fault on the part of the complainant and the complainant has to bring the vehicle to his place as the service centre Lohchab Mahindra has started demanding the charges/rent for the damaged vehicle of the complainant parked at their service centre and the respondents have finally refused to give the approval for repair of the vehicle without any reason and asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired at his own expense a week back, giving cause of action to file the present complaint. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1010864/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till actual realization, to pay Rs.500000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.50000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 filed their reply and in preliminary objections has submitted that on receipt of the intimation on 03.02.2020 about the loss of Mahindra XUN500 of the complainant bearing registration no.GA-03P-4980, the claim was duly entertained in due course and the respondent Insurance company on its part appointed Hemant Kumar Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to survey the loss and collection of necessary documents. But inspite of letters/reminders to the insured dated 26.02.2020, 16.08.2020 & 19.09.220, the complainant has not submitted the required documents such as previous policy details, sale purchase documents, airbag deployment report. The matter was also entrusted to M/s Royal Associates, Investigating & detective Agency and as per the report, rear side damages seem to be manipulated by the insured to get total loss. The driver of crane Mr. Ombir who lifted accidental Car from the accident site, has confirmed in writing that at the time car was having front side damages only. On merits, it is submitted that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.709709/-. But the claim lodged by the complainant found manipulated. The loss was further investigated and found to be not co-relating with the loss particulars provided by the complainant. Due to non-submission of the documents and clarifications and after the legal process of the claim file was closed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that on 03.02.2020 the vehicle in question came in the workshop of answering respondent in damaged accidental condition. After receiving the damaged vehicle the answering respondent duly gave intimation about the accident of the vehicle to its concerned insurance company within time and survey of the same was duly conducted but after survey the concerned insurance company i.e respondent no.1 & 2 did not provide approval to repair the vehicle in question to the answering respondent thus the officials of answering respondent told the complainant to repair the vehicle in cost but the complainant did not agree for the same and took his vehicle from the workshop of answering opposite party. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was parked in the workshop of the answering opposite party w.e.f. 03.02.2020 to 02.03.2020 and thus accordingly the answering respondent reserve its right to claim an amount of Rs.150/- per day on account of parking charges from the complainant. It is further submitted that the actual dispute is between the complainant and the respondent no.1 & 2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and document Ex.C1 to Ex. C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.11.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R21 and closed his evidence on 03.11.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, document Ex.R3/1 and closed his evidence on 21.07.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. The claim of the complainant has not been paid by the opposite party till date and opposite party no.1 & 2 have sent letters Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 and demanded some clarifications and documents from the complainant. As per letter Ex.C8, opposite party has demanded previous policy details, sale purchase documents and airbag deployment report from dealer. Copy of previous policy is also demanded by the opposite party to know the fact that on which basis the complainant had declared the IDV of Rs.911760/-. In this regard it is observed that at the time of issuance of present policy, the opposite party duly got inspected the vehicle by their agency and only thereafter assessed the value of vehicle and the premium was taken by the opposite party as per the IDV of the vehicle assessed by them. If any previous policy was needed for the assessment of value of the vehicle, the same should have been demanded at the time of issuance of policy. Hence the demand of previous policy or sale-purchase documents at the time of assessment of loss is not required and non-settlement of loss on this ground is illegal. The other plea taken by the opposite party No.1 & 2 is that the damages to the vehicle at the spot of accident were only on the front side and at the time of survey damages to rear side were also found which is indicative of aggravation of loss. To prove this fact, opposite party No.1 & 2 has placed on record copy of statement Ex.R11 of one Ombir, Proprietor of Crane Service. But the alleged statement is not supported with any affidavit. Moreover the photographs placed on record by the opposite party No.1 & 2 itself proves that the car was damaged from both sides. We have also perused the investigator report Ex.R10, as per which, the investigator has recorded the statement of insured, who has stated that on 01.02.2020, the complainant’s son Kashish Kumar met with accident while driving the alleged car. The car of the complainant hit into the back of an ongoing truck and vehicle coming behind also hit the rear side of car. It shows that the car in question was damaged from both the sides. Hence the statement recorded by the investigator itself proves the damages in the car. We have minutely perused Ex.R9 and Ex.R10. Ex.R9 is the survey report prepared by Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma surveyor deputed by the insurance company on dated 03.02.2020 and he surveyed the damaged vehicle on 06.02.2020. As per his observation on page no.2 which are as under:- “On hearing from Insurers, the undersigned contacted insured/repairer went to them & inspected the vehicle, noted the damages which were fresh in nature & in concurrence with the cause of the accident as mentioned in the claim form. Adequate photographs were taken”. Moreover this report has been submitted by the surveyor with the insurance company on dated 09.01.2021. Meaning thereby the same was submitted approximately after 11 months whereas an investigator which was deputed by the insurance company lateron has submitted his report with the insurance company on dated 13.07.2020. It shows that the investigator report received earlier and the final survey report has been submitted by the surveyor Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma belatedly on 09.01.2021. The act of the surveyor itself creates doubt. We have minutely perused the survey report. As per surveyor he has assessed the estimated loss in the vehicle as Rs.1010864/-. This amount has been mentioned at page no.3 of his report and thereafter an another calculation has also been made on page no.5 of his report and as per this the final liability comes to Rs.709709/-. After considering both the amounts, we came into the conclusion that vehicle comes under the category of total loss. Hence repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party no.1 & 2 are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle Rs.911960/- after deducting the salvage value, which we have assessed as Rs.50000/- i.e. to pay Rs.861960/-(Rs.911960/- less Rs.50000/-).
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.861960/-(Rupees eight lac sixty one thousand nine hundred and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.09.2020 till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of RC within 15 days.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.02.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
