BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.157 of 2023
Date of Instt. 04.05.2023
Date of Decision: 29.01.2024
Maha Singh Son of Tejveer Singh resident of C-652, Officer Colony, Jalandhar Cantt, Village Sufipind Distt. Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Kosmo Plastic Exports Pvt. Ltd., Automobiles, Showroom cum Workshop, Opposite Delhi Public School, G. T. Road, Jalandhar.
2. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd through its Manager, 2nd Floor, Savitri Complex, G. T. Road, Dholewal Chowk, Moga (Punjab).
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs exparte.
Order
Jyotsna (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased a Car Aura 1.2 MT 415/23 CNG S, Polar White bearing registration no.PB 08EV 8809 manufactured in year 2021. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.7,51,254/- from the OP No.1. The OP No.1 have got financed the Car bearing no.PB 08EV 8809 from State Bank of India. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his family requirement and the above said vehicle was insured by the OP No.2 vide cashless insurance policy for a sum of Rs.7,12,187/-. The complainant insured the said car from OP No.2. The period of the insurance is 12-10-2021 to 11-10-2022 for a sum of Rs.7,12,187/-. The vehicle was driven by his driver for going to airport Chandigarh for dropping the relatives of the complainant on 5-10-2022 and when he was returning back from Chandigarh to Jalandhar and when the vehicle reached in the Area Phase-7, Mohali at about 2.30 AM, then a Motorcycle bearing no.UP11AS0391 was coming from outside in very high speed and Zig-Zag manner and struck in the car bearing registration no.PB 08EV 8809 due to that driver of the motorcycle sustained the injuries and thereafter declared dead. A false FIR No.193 dated 5-10-2022 u/S 304-A/279/427 IPC, Phase-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali was registered against the driver of the car. The engine and body of the car was badly damaged. The information was given to the OPs No.1 and 2. The OP No.1 appointed a surveyor who had assessed the loss caused to the vehicle on the total loss of Rs. 3,34,615-13р/-. The quotation no.ET 22120173 dated 24-12-2022 was issued by the surveyor for a loss of engine of the vehicle but the insurance company not given the amount. The complainant so many times requested to the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 received a sum of Rs.47,650/- amount of insurance at the time of purchased the vehicle by the complainant but the respondents stated that the previously amount will be paid by the complainant for repairing the said Car. The complainant requested many times to the respondents to repair the vehicle or otherwise return the full and final amount of the said vehicle but the respondents did not agree the same. The complainant has suffered a loss at the hands of the respondents and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the vehicle in good condition or otherwise the amount of Rs.7,51,254/- alongwith interest be refunded. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for causing pains and suffering and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs but despite service OPs failed to appear and ultimately both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant has produced on the file his respective evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant very minutely.
5. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Car Aura 1.2 MT 415/23 CNG S, Polar White bearing registration no.PB 08EV 8809 manufactured in year 2021 for a sum of Rs.7,51,254/- from OP No.1, vide Invoice No.G/21-22/0722 on 25.10.2021 as per Ex.C-1. The car was insured for the period 12.10.2021 to 11.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.7,12,187/- from OP No.2 by paying premium of Rs.47,650/-, which is evident from Ex.C-3. On 05.10.2022 while returning from Chandigarh to Jalandhar, the car met with an accident in the area Phase-7, Mohali at about 02:30 AM with a motorcycle bearing No.UP11AS0391, which was coming at very high speed in Zig Zag manner. Engine and body of the car was badly damaged. FIR was registered against the driver of the car Ex.C-7. The information was given to the OP No.1 and 2. The OP No.1 prepared repair estimate of Rs.3,34,615.13 Ex.C-4, but the case has not been settled by the insurance company.
6. On the other hand, the OPs have not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un- challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. The allegation of the complainant is supported by his own affidavit Ex.CA and supported documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is clear that complainant had purchased a car from OP No.1 which was insured by OP No.2 for a full amount of Rs.7,12,187/-. The contention of the complainant is that he obtained cashless insurance policy. The car met with an accident during insurance period on 05.10.2022, engine and body of the car was badly damaged. The information was given to OPs. The OP No.1 prepared repair estimate of Rs.3,34,615.13 Ex.C-4.
8. The accident took place on 05.10.2022. The damaged car is still under the custody of OP No.1 and has not been repaired as yet. In the written arguments and email dated 18.01.2024 produced by the complainant during the arguments, the complainant has alleged that the claim was cashless and no payment has been made by the OP No.2. In cashless policy, there is direct contact of insurance company with the automobile/repairing company and the charges are settled directly. The policy holder does not have to pay any cash. The complainant has submitted that vehicle is still with the OPs for repair but till today the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the insurance company. The OP has not decided the claim for the last more than one year this itself is deficiency in service on the part of the OP/insurance company. In such circumstances, the OP insurance company should be given an opportunity to decide the claim of the complainant on merits.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, a direction is given to the OP No.2 to decide the pending cashless claim of the complainant within 45 days on the basis of documents already submitted by the complainant in toto and to inform the OP No.1 and make the payment of repair to OP No.1 since it is cashless claim and matter is to be settled between OP No.1 and OP No.2. If any other document is required, the complainant and OP No.1 are directed to produce immediately and then the OPs will settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the necessary documents/information, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Thus, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
29.01.2024 Member Member President
