Haryana

Karnal

342/2014

Raj Kishan S/o Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Finance Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Aneja

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 342 of 2014

                                                    Date of instt. 23.12.2014

                                                     Date of decision 08.11.2017

 

Raj Kishan son of Shri Madan Lal resident of V.P.O. Harigarh Bhoarakh, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. SCO-13, Sector 3, Karnal (Haryana) through Branch Manager.

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. 3 Middleton Street, Post Box no.9229 Kolkata-700071 through its Branch Manager.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member

 

Present: Shri B.S. Aneja Advocate for the complainant.

               Shri Vineet Rathore Adv. for opposite party no.1

               Shri Pankaj Malhotra Adv. for opposite party no.2.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a car no.HR41 D-8049 make Alto K-10 Engine no.4291933, Chasis no.231327 from Karnal Motors Kurukshetra on 7.9.2011 while OPno.1 financed Rs.1,95,000/- and also vehicle insured through OP no.2. On 17.5.2013 the said vehicle met with an accident by careless and negligence of other offending vehicle due to which the abovesaid car got damaged. First Information Report no.76 dated 17.5.2013 lodged in that regard. He got repaired his car from authorized Maruti Service Station. He also informed the OPs, OPs deputed a surveyor for inspecting the vehicle, but no claim has been paid by the OPs to him. He spent Rs.1,01,865/- on the repair of the car and he is entitled to that amount. He requested the OPs several times for settlement of his claim, but OPs did not settle his claim and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties; complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary manner; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. It has been submitted that the complainant availed finance facilities for purchase of commercial vehicle in capacity of borrower from OP no.1. The complainant does not fall within the purview of definition of consumer against OP no.1 as the matter is of financial relationship. It has further been submitted that  complainant approached the OP no.1 and requested for a auto car and accordingly showed his credibility. Complainant obtained the loan of Rs.1,95,000/- on 10.09.2011 against the finance of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Alto bearing registration no.HR-41D-8049 and for this he duly entered into the loan agreement no.PG/0030/C/10/000342. As per agreement the complainant was required to repay the financed amount by way of equated monthly installments. It was specifically agreed by complainant while entering into the agreement that in the event of default of EMIs, the OP no.1 shall have a right to impose late payment penalty and other overdue charges as agreed in the agreement. The NOC in that case has already been issued to the complainant on 4.9.2014.  No claim of the complainant is pending on account of OP no.1. It has been denied that OP no.1 insured the vehicle of the complainant with OP no.2. It has been submitted that insurance was got done by the complainant himself. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate reply stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable as it does not disclose any cause of action against the OPs as no claim till date has been lodged with OP no.1. However, it has been stated that as and when the complainant lodged the claim, the same shall be processed and settled in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy and the rules framed there under.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 22.7.2016.

5.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into the evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Legal Executive Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.O1 to Ex.18 and closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that it is admitted by the parties that the complainant has purchased an Alto K-10 car bearing registration no.HR-41 D-8049 from Karnal Motors Kurukshetra on 7.9.2011 which was financed by OP no.1 for Rs.1,95,000/- and the said vehicle was insured with the OP no.2. There is also no dispute that on 17.5.2013, the said car met with an accident and was damaged regarding which an FIR no.76 under section 279, 337 IPC was registered on 17.5.2013 in Police Station Naggal District Ambala. There is also no dispute that OP appointed Er. Kuldeep Singh Surveyor in the present case, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.79,000/-. The OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 19.6.2015 Ex.O-1. It is mentioned in the repudiation letter that the file of the complainant stands closed, on account of Sr. no.1 and 3 below:

1. Inspite of letters/reminders sent to you, you have not complied with the required papers/documents.

3. We are closing your file, on account of following reason:-

   Claim not supported by valid documents/information.

According to the complainant he spent Rs. 1,01,865/- on the repair of the said car and to prove the same the complainant placed on the file the bill Ex.C15 to Ex.C17 and the receipt Ex.C18 to Ex.C20. On the other hand, OP no.2 contended in his amended reply that the OP no.2 sought the documents from the complainant, vide letter dated 2.5.2015, 5.5.2015 and 5.6.2015 and placed the copies of the same on the file as Ex.O-4, Ex.O-3 and Ex.O-2 respectively. The letter dated 5.6.2015 and 5.5.2015 are alleged to be reminders of the letter dated 2.4.2015. Vide letter dated 2.4.2015 the OP no.2 required the following documents from the complainant. (i) Re-inspection report whether re-inspection survey done or note. (ii) receipt copy of accident intimation letter to the National Insurance Company Ltd. Kaithal branch. (iii) NCB confirmation from the previous insurance company as you have enjoyed 20% NCB from us during the policy period of 2012-2013.

8.             Regarding the documents demanded by letter dated 2.4.2015, it is pertinent to mention here that whether there was re-inspection or not, the same might be in the knowledge of OPs or the same can be told by the Surveyor of the OP, therefore, this document was not necessarily required from the complainant. Similarly, the information, if any, regarding  the intimation  about the NCB confirmation from the branch of OP no.2 at Kaithal can be obtained by the OP no.2 itself. It is pertinent to mention here that the policy in question was issued on 10.9.2012 as is clear from Ex.C-6 which was valid from 7.9.2012 to 6.9.2013 and the accident in question had taken place on 17.5.2013 i.e. after about 8 months of the issuance of the policy in question. So, it was the duty of the OP no.2 to confirm about the NCB form the previous insurance company within 30 days from the issuance of the policy in question, but OP no.2 did not do so. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP no.2 has wrongly denied the claim of the complainant.  As already stated above the OP no.2 has appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.79,000/-. In this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2(2008) CPJ page 182(NC), United India Insurance Co.Vs. Maya wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.  From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the loss assessed by the surveyor has not been paid by the OP no.2, so the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant.

9.             As a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.79000/- to the complainant. The OP no. 2 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 8.11.2017

                                                                       

                                                                       President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member