Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/18/2021

Mahipal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagmohan Motors Private Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Poonam Sangwan

25 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

Complaint Case No.18 of 2021.

 Date of Institution: 01.02.2021.

Date of Order: 25.10.2024

 

Mahipal Singh son of Baldev Singh, Permanent resident ofvillage and post office Santore, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

…Complainant

 

Versus

1. Jagmohan Motors Private Ltd thorugh its Prop/Manager, Loharu Chowk, Charkhi Dadri.
2. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Ltd. through its MD/ CEO, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, DO 2 Aakash Plaza, 1^st Floor, Near Jindal Chowk, Hissar-125001.
4. Unique Maruti through its Prop/Manager, Unique Motors Private Ltd, Village and Post Office Satroad, OP Jindal Marg, Hissar-125001

 

…Opposite parties

                        Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,

 BEFORE:            Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

PRESENT:          Ms. Poonam Sangwan, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Rahul Sheoran, counsel for OP no.1.

                             Sh. Gourav Arya, counsel for OP no.2.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Chahar, counsel for the OP no.3.

OP no.4 exparte.

 

ORDER:

 

1. It is  alleged in the complaint that the complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Swift LXI Car vide invoice no. 004/VSL/19000393 dated 15.01.2020, bearing chassis no. MBHCZC63SLA545135, Engine No.K12MP1170772.The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing temporary Registration No. HR-2020-T/R-8484D, which was insured vide policy No. 34280031200160006909 “Commercial Vehicle Package Policy” for the period from 15.01.2020 to 14.01.2021.  It was submitted that on dated 17.01.2020 complainant alongwith his son Deepak and Sonu went to Greater Noida for some religious ceremonies and while returning on 18.01.2020 at about 04.30 AM due to smog and cloudy weather, complainant could not see the truck coming from opposite side, his car collided with divider and damaged. It was further submitted that the complainant informed the opposite parties on the very same day and after confirmation from OPs, the car after toeing was taken to workshop of OP no.4 for repair. OP no.4 submitted bill of Rs. 2,48,756/- to insurer towards repair charges and after charging  Rs.8000/-, handed over the car to complainant on 25.05.2020 and assured that bill amount will be claimed from the insurance company by them. On 03.08.2020 complainant received a call from Ravi Hooda, Mobile No.9416290129 working with OP no.4, who informed that vehicle service is due and called the vehicle for service. Complainant being ignorant of tactics of OPs carried his car to the workshop of OP no.4. That OP no.4 illegally impounded the car in his workshop and asked complainant to pay repair charges amounting to Rs.2,48,756/- and further informed the complainant that insurance company has repudiated the claim. It is pertinent to mention here that car was hypothecated by HDFC Bank and complainant is forced to pay the installments of car loan without having the car in his custody. Hence this complaint.
2. On appearance, the Op no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that  the OP no.1 has no concern whatsoever with the repair of the vehicle. It is the matter between OP no.3&4.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed qua the OP no.1.
3. OP no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that OP no.2 is not an insurance company to settle the alleged claim. As per the complainant’s own admission his vehicle is in the custody of OP no.4 who had repaired the vehicle. Hence, OP-2 has no role in this claim and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. On appearance, the OP no.3 filed written statement alleging therein that answering respondent acted on the information immediately according to rules and regulations applicable on such kind of cases and complainant himself failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss. The alleged accident had taken place on 18.01.2020 and company was informed on 06.02.2020 after a delay of 19 days, no DDR, no FIR, no explanation was lodged/given. He himself failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle. The car was having commercial policy of insurance but there was no permit and permanent registration/fitness certificate of the vehicle  which is one of the important condition for indemnification  of the owner and it is mandated under Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act and 87 of Motor Vehicle Act that no vehicle is allowed to ply on road without registration certificate and without permit in case of commercial vehicle thus the complainant violated the provisions of Act as well as policy of insurance. Therefore the claim is not found payable and claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Notice was sent to OP no.4 but none appeared on behalf of OP no.4. Hence, OP no.4 was proceeded exparte vide order dt.09.03.2021.
6. Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits/averments and adduced certain documents. Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order.
7. We have heard the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merits and the same deserves acceptance, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.
8. In the light of the pleadings of parties and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on file.  The material facts of the case are not in dispute.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that the complainant has violated the condition of the insurance policy.  The complainant has not taken the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss by taking reasonable steps and due care. The ground taken by OP-3 that the claimant had withdrawn his claim vide letter dt.9.12.2020 and claim was closed as “No Claim” and the closing the claim file on the reason of  “Breach of policy conditions-Material to loss” as per repudiation letter dt.14.12.2020 (Ex.R3/5) is not tenable and acceptable. The Insurance Company (OP-3) had processed the claim and survey of the accidental vehicle was got done  through Ashutosh  Kalra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor (appointed by OP-3) had assessed the loss  for Rs.2,27,461.23 vide his Motor Survey Report dt.25.05.2020 (Ex.R3/1). Further, the OP no.3 deputed Neil Soni, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for re-inspection of the accidental vehicle who in his report dt.02.06.2020 (Ex.R3/3) has affirmed that the vehicle has been re-inspected, after complete repairs & replacements and found that all the parts have been replaced and repair work has been carried out as per Surveyor Report of Sh.  Ashutosh Kalra, Surveyor, Hisar. Hence, there is no iota of doubt that the vehicle was damaged in an accident   and the cost of repair was Rs.2,27,461.23 as per Survey Report of the Surveyor of OP-3. The complainant has filed claim Rs.2,48,756/- which is quite realistic and within the limit of sum insured declared value of Rs.4,88,300/-. The reason for repudiation of the claim i.e. filing of claim after delay of 19 days, withdrawal of claim and breach of policy conditions are not valid and prima facie raised with specific purpose of repudiation of the claim. The same are set aside being unacceptable and the present complaint is allowed.
9.  In view of the abovementioned observations, this Commission passes following directions:-

1. OP no.3 to pay Rs.2,48,756/- to the complainant alongwith  interest @9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 14.12.2020 till   final payment.
2. OP no.3 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.
3. OP no.3 to pay  Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. OP-4 to release the vehicle on receipt  of repair charges and  without any additional charges such as parking charges

          The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of order failing which further interest @12% per annum from the date of default till the date of realization.

10. If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party will be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.