Punjab

Sangrur

CC/270/2014

JAI SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D., SKYMARK MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT AGGARWAL

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

 

                                                Complaint No.    270

                                                Instituted on:      08.05.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.02.2015

 

Jai Singh son of Labh Sigh resident of Village Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                                …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.             Skymark Motors Pvt. Ltd. Village Bhatmajra, near Madhopur Chowk, GT Road, Sirhind through its M.D.

2.             Skymark Motors Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur Jind Delhi Road, Opposite Indian Oil Corporation Depot, Sangrur (Branch office of OP number 1) through its Branch Manager.

3.             Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 4^th and 5^th Floor, Iffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon through its Manager.

4.             Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ground Floor, Seetal Complex, 5-C/1, Near National nursery, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

5.             Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Leela Bhawan, Above PNB Bank, Patiala through its Manager.

6.             Chola Business Services Limited (An associate of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.) Above Central Bank of India, Roxy Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                                …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OP No.1&2         :       Exparte.

For OP No. 3&4        :       Shri Sumesh Garg, Advocate.

For OP No. 5&6        :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jai Singh, 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 a bus bearing chassis number MC219ERFODF and engine number E483CDDF617161 from OP number 2 on 2.7.2013 and got the same insured from Ops number 3 and 4 at Sunam through their agent and OP number 3 and 4 issued cover note number 73880660 dated 2.7.2013 at Sunam. It is further stated that the complainant purchased the bus in question in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. It is further stated that the bus in question was purchased after availing loan from Ops number 5 and 6.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that the bus in question on 8.7.2013 met with an accident while it was going to Mastuana Sahib Gurudwara to pay the obeisance and got damaged.  The information of accident was given to the OPs number 3 and 4 and the bus in question was taken to OP number 1 for repairs, who advised to get the same repaired from the local mechanic/body builder and accordingly the bus in question was got repaired from Mit Bus Body Builders, Cheema Mandi. However, the Ops number 2 and 3 appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor, who inspected the vehicle. On asking of the surveyor, the complainant also submitted the required documents i.e. RC, permit, bills etc. to him.  It is further stated that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.46,682/- on the repair of the bus. The grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated visits to the Ops number 2 and 3, they have not paid the insurance claim. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.46,682/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             Record shows that the Ops number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded exparte.

 

4.             In reply filed by Ops number 3 and 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, that the complainant has concealed material facts that the bus had no permit at the time of accident, as such it is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as Motor Vehicles Act.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the bus in question and got insured from OPs number 2 and 3. It is further stated that on receipt of intimation about the alleged accident, the Ops deputed Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.21,000/- after applying depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that the complainant had submitted the copy of RC and permit to the surveyor.  It is specifically stated that the complainant did not supply the permit as on the date of accident, the vehicle has no permit, as such, it is stated that no claim is payable to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.46,682/- on the repair of the bus in question.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

5.             In reply filed by Ops number 5 and 6, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint against the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question, but the factum of insurance is denied for want of knowledge.  It is further denied that the complainant never approached the Ops number 5 and 6 about the accident.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of cover note, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of bills, Ex.C-8 copy of RC, Ex.C-9 copy of receipt, Ex.C-10 copy of permit, Ex.C-11 certified copy of complaint, Ex.C-12 copy of statement, Ex.C-13 copy of order dated 1.4.2014, Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-15 affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 3 and 4 has produced Ex.OP3&4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP3&4/2 copy of letter, Ex.OP3&4/3 copy of final survey report, Ex.OP3&4/4 copy of letter, Ex.OP3&4/5 affidavit, Ex.OP3&4/6 copy of letter, Ex.OP3&4/7 copy of policy, Ex.OP3&4/8 copy of policy, Ex.OP3&4/9 copy of registration certificate, Ex.OP3&4/10 copy of payment receipt, Ex.OP3&4/11 copy of RC and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 5 and 6 has produced Ex.OP5&6/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

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

 

8.             At the outset, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, as such, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention as the complainant had got the vehicle insured for the only purpose to make good the loss and not commercial purpose. As the vehicle in question suffered an accident and the insured/Ops are only liable to make good the loss, as such, we feel that no commercial activity is involved in the case.  Accordingly, we find that the complaint of the complainant is very much maintainable before this Forum.

 

9.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from OPs number 1 and 2 and the same was subsequently got insured from OP number 3 and 4 for an amount of Rs.10,30,750/- for the period from 2.7.2013 to 1.7.2014 and the Ops number 3 and 4 charged an amount of Rs.38,652/- as premium, as is evident from the copy of cover note Ex.C-3. 

 

10.            The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 8.7.2013 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance policy and suffered a loss of Rs.46,682/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the Ops have repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having a valid route permit at the time of accident.  Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 2.7.2013 from Ops number 1 and 2 and the same was comprehensively got insured immediately i.e. on 2.7.2013 and at the time of insurance also the vehicle in question was not having route permit and registration certificate.  If the OPs had not to pay the insurance claim, then why the OPs insured the vehicle even without the permit and registration certificate.  If the vehicle met with an accident on the way, then the insured/OPs number 3 and 4 have denied the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not having a route permit and registration certificate at the time of accident.  Further no such terms and conditions have been provided to the complainant nor the policy in question has been issued to the complainant and only a cover note has been issued at the time of insurance.      We may mention here that it takes some time for getting the permit and to get the vehicle registered from the District Transport Officer. Moreover, the OPs number 3 and 4 had already issued the cover note after receiving the requisite premium of the policy.  Now, at this later stage, the OPs cannot take the plea that the complainant had not got the vehicle registered and had not applied for the permit immediately as the vehicle of the complainant had temporary registration.

 

11.            We have further gone through the survey report Ex.OP3&4/3 placed on record, in which the surveyor has deducted 50% depreciation on some parts, which were allowed by him as replacement. But, since the vehicle was a new one and the accident took place within a very short period of five days of its date of purchase, so the surveyor has erred in allowing deduction of 50% depreciation on spare parts of the vehicle.  So, we do not concur with the survey report tendered by the Ops Ex.OP3&4/3, as they have deducted Rs.8853/- on account of 50% depreciation on the spare parts without any explanation.  The excess clause and salvage amount has been deducted properly. 

 

12.            Further the report of the surveyor is not such a  document, against which no fingers can be raised.  This view has also been taken by the Hon’ble State Commission Chandigarh in Appeal Number 63 of 2011, decided on 20.4.2011 in case titled as The United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Vijay Sundram.  As such, it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 3 and 4.

 

13.            In view of our discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops number 3 and 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.29853/- i.e. (Rs.32205/-  minus Rs.1352/- minus Rs.1000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.5.2014 till realisation.  OPs number 3 and 4 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

14.            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 charge. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 4, 2015.

                                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member