Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/38/2015

Manas Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director (Suzuki India Limited) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Surendra Mohanty

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 38/2015

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Manas Pandey,

S/O-Harihara Pandey.

R/O-Manikmunda, Po-Modipara, PS-Town,

Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                 …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd,

1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070.                                      

2. Manager, OYSSEY MOTORS PVT. LTD.

Situated at Ainthapali, N.H.-6, Ps/Po-Ainthapali,

Sambalpur-768004

3. Claim Manager(Motor Claims Department),

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near SidhiVinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

4. Manager, Maruti Insurance Broking Private Ltd.

Insurance Policy is served through this office situated at Ainthapali,

N.H.-6, Ps/PO- Ainthapali,

Sambalpur-768004        .                                                         ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. S.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P. No.1            &4       :-         Sri S.K.Samal, Advocate & Associates.
3. For the O.P. No.2             :-         Sri. B.K.Panda, Advocate & Associates.
4. For the O.P. No.3             :-         Sri. B.K.Purohit, Advocate.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 12.07.2022

    Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT: 

1. The Complainant purchased one Maruti Wagnor VXI car from O.P. No.2, who is the authorised dealer of O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs. 4,83,449, Road tax of Rs. 23,735/- Rs.13,873/- to-wards insurance, Rs. 4500/- to-wards warranty for 4 years, Rs. 1500/- to-wards basic accessories and Rs. 7000/- extra accessories. The Complainant spent Rs. 4,90,449/- in total, registered the vehicle bearing No. OD 15C 6278. The Complainant under one hire-purchase agreement purchased the vehicle from M/S Magma financial Crop. Ltd, Budharaja, Sambalpur and the finance amount was Rs. 3,25,000/-. The terms of payment was interest @8% by installments. The Complaint exchanged his vehicle(INDICA) No. OR15H-6391 for Rs. 70,000/- with O.P. No.2 and the amount was adjusted.

The Complainant insured the vehicle from O.P. No.3 through O.P. No.4 for third party package policy. Policy No. 3001/96798676/00/000 was issued which was valid from 25.11.2014 to 24.11.2015 MN. The vehicle was delivered on 01.12.2014. The vehicle met an accident on 07.02.2015 while the Complainant was returning from in-laws house nor Bhadigaon, Boudh Police Station. The matter was informed to Boudh fire station, Boudh over phone. The fire brigade arrived at the spot, extinguished the fire. The vehicle was completely damaged by fire and all documents burnt. A fire certificate No. 309/BDS F.S dated 08.02.2015 was issued. The matter was informed to I.I.C Boudh police station, who visited the spot and S.D.E. No. 160 dated 07.02.2015 was drawn up.

The Complainant informed the incidence to O.P. No.2 & 4 on the same day. The O.P. No.4 conducted a survey through a surveyor. The O.P. No.2 visited the spot on 08.02.2015 and on his instruction, the vehicle was shifted to work-shop situated at Ainthapali for inspection and repair. All documents were submitted with O.P. No.4, again on 14.02.2015 the O.P. No.2 inspected the vehicle in work-shop, accepted the claim No. MOTO-04391731 with observation “due to shot circuit vehicle caught fire.”

The loss assessed Rs. 3,85,000/- to-wards full and final settlement of the claim and was paid to the Complainant. The O.P. No.4 did not pay the value of the car although the Complainant has paid Rs. 2888/- to-wards charge for zero depreciation while making policy with O.P. No.3.

The Complainant in writing claimed replacement of the vehicle with O.P.No.2 as during the period the case was under the period of warranty. The O.P. No.2 rejected the claim and informed vide letter dated 21.02.2015 that “the cause of fire is some external source/reason and not due to any manufacturing defect or abnormality”. The Complainant was advised to get the same repaired under normal terms through insurance or on paid basis. The rejection of the claim is deliberate and the O.P. No.1 & 2 failed to provide service.

The Complainant paid outstanding loan amount with interest on 30.04.2015 to M/S Magma fincorp Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 3,43,532/-. The O.Ps are deficient in their service. This is the case of the Complainant.

2. After appearance of the case, the O.P. No.1 filed its version and pleaded that the case suffers from mis-joinder of parties, the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’, the complaint is frivolous one, the alleged fire in the vehicle happened not due to any manufacturing defect but-because of external factor and there is no cause of action against the answering O.P.. The claim of the Complainant has been settled in full and final as per the indemnity cum declaration undertaking under warranty being an accident case. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
3. The case of the O.P. No.2, M/S Odyssey Motors Pvt.Ltd. is that the Complainant has not mentioned the date of purchase from O.P. No.2, a hire-purchase agreement with Magma fincorp Ltd., Budharja and accordingly, the Complainant is not the owner of the vehicle. The Complainant has insured the vehicle with O.P. No.3, ICICI Lombard G.I.C Ltd. through O.P. No.4, Maruti Insurance Bank Pvt. Ltd. having policy No. 3001/96798676/000 against alternative policy No. 3001/MI-02441232/00/000 and was valid from 25.11.2014 to 24.11.2015. The Complainant informed the fire accident incidence to O.P. No.2 and 4, who visited the spot, shifted the damaged vehicle to the work-shop of O.P. No.2 at Ainthapali for inspection and repair. The surveyor of O.P. No.4 observed that “due to short circuit vehicle caught fire.” The loss was assessed Rs. 3,85,000/- and fully and finally settled. For the zero depreciation policy if any amount of Rs. 2,888/- is paid by the Complainant before O.P. No.3 through O.P. No.4, the Complainant is entitled for compensation from O.P. No.3 & 4 and not from O.P. No.2. The accident is due to external cause and not for any manufacturing defects. The Complainant has purchased the vehicle on 01.12.2014 and there is no any deficiency on the part of O.P. No.2. The accident caused due to entry of straw in to wiring of the engine.
4. The O.P. No.3 in its written version submitted that the settled amount has been disbursed to the Complainant and the Complainant has no any case. One package policy for private vehicle bearing No. 3001/MI-02441232/00/000 was issued in favour of Manas Pandey for registered vehicle No. OD-15C-5278 and the policy was valid for 25.11.2014 to 24.11.2015. In the said policy there is a provision to deduct Rs. 1000/- like every policy. In an own damage claim, it requires that if the insured wants to keep the salvage then the assessed amount of  salvage is deducted from the total settled amount for all own damage claims.

When the insurer got the message of fire accident, one surveyor and loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss. The assessed loss was Rs. 4,00,000/- after deducting Rs. 1000/- to-wards policyexcess and Rs. 1,590/- to-wards salvage/wreck value, the insured agreed to settle the claim at Rs. 3,85,000/-, signed the discharge voucher to-wards full and final settlement. The amount was paid vide cheque No. 1173741 and on 23.04.2015 handed over to financier Magma Fincrop Ltd. and the Claim was closed. There is no dispute against the O.P. No.3 and complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

There is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.3 .

When the insured’s Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle is Rs. 4,12,590/- premium has been calculated accordingly, he cannot hike the price of the vehicle. The Complainant has not made the financier a party in the case.

5. The O.P. No.4 Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. in its version submitted that the company is a broking company and not a necessary party in the case. The Complainant has no locus standi to initiate the case against the O.P. No.4, when insurance policy is issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd/ The role of O.P. No.4 is to appraise about the policies. The O.P. No.3 is the risk carrier, accordingly the case is liable to be dismissed.
6. After perusal of the documents filed by the parties, the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Is there any manufacturing defect in the alleged vehicle MARUTI WAGONR VXI, OD-15C 6278?
2. Whether premium has been paid by the insured on declared value or purchased price of the vehicle?
3. Are the O.Ps deficient in their Service?
4. What relief, the Complainant is entitled to get?

 

 

ISSUE NO.1: Is there any manufacturing defect in the alleged vehicle MARUTI WAGONR VXI, OD-15C 6278?

                   The Complainant purchased the vehicle on 01.12.2014 on hire purchase basis. Magma fincrop Ltd. Vide letter No. P/0020/12/01117 declared that total cost of the vehicle Rs. 4,34,305/- and after down payment  of Rs. 1,08,805/- financed amount became Rs. 3,25,500/-. The O.P. No.3 insured the vehicle for Rs. 4,12,590/- on 25.11.2014 proposal , received Rs. 17325/- to-wards premium. The O.P. No.4 broking insurance Pvt. Ltd. received on behalf of O.P. No.3 insurance company. The insurance service was provided through O.P. No.4.

On 07.02.2015, the Complainant along with his family members near river Salunki at village Badhigaon under Boudh police station from the certificate No. 309/BDH F.S dated 08.02.2015 it reveals that the vehicle gutted by the fire. The accident is supported by S.D.E. No. 160 dated 07.02.2015 of Boudh Police Station.

The allegation of the Complainant is that the vehicle has manufacturing defect. The Complainant has not filed any supportive documents of the experts to prove the ‘manufacturing defect’. From the day of purchase till the accident no any complaint has been made to O.P. No.1 & 2, rather it is the admission of the Complainant that at the time of accident the vehicle had run 700 kms.

From the report of the surveyor and statement of O.P. No.2, it reveals that due to short circuit and accident the fire broke. As there is no any documentary evidence from the side of complainant regarding ‘manufacturing defect’ the issue is answered against the Complainant.

ISSUE NO. 2 Whether premium has been paid by the insured on declared value or purchased price of the vehicle?

          From the sale letter filed by the Complainant it reveals that the vehicle cost is Rs. 4, 34,305/- and finance amount is Rs. 3,25,500/-

          The O.P. No.3 while issuing the policy bond reflected the value of the vehicle(IDV) as Rs. 4,12,590/- and through OP. No.4 received the premium of Rs. 17,325/-.

          Here a question arises when the O.P. No.3 and 4 received the sale letter why the purchased value of Rs.4,34,305/- was not taken into consideration. Further on what basis the I.D.V was fixed for Rs. 4,12,590/- it has not been pleaded in the version nor any documentary evidence filed. In a whimsical way the O.P. No.3 issued the policy, through O.P. No.4. Certainly on the IDV the premium has been fixed by O.P. No.3 & 4 and paid by the Complainant.

          This dispute is due to difference in the purchased value and IDV. This amounts to unfair trade practice of the O.P. No.3 & 4.

          Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3 Are the O.Ps deficient in their Service?

          The O.P. No.3 has already settled the claim and paid an amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- to the financier of the Complainant as per policy terms and conditions although the financier has not been made a party.

          The difference in value of the vehicle and declared value of the vehicle differs.

          Most of the insured in the country face this type of problem due to non disclosure of the financial aspects to the insured. In the instant case, non disclosure of the financial aspects to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service by the O.P. No.3 & 4.

          Accordingly, the issue is answered against the O.P. No.3 & 4.

ISSUE NO.4 What relief, the Complainant is entitled to get?

          From the supra discussions it is concluded that the Complainant is entitled for the claim. Accordingly it is ordered.

 

 

ORDER

          The Complainant is allowed partly on contest against the O.P. No.3 & 4. The O.P. No.3 & 4 are liable to pay the declared value of the vehicle (IDV) fixed i.e. Rs. 4,34,305/- minus the amount paid i.e. Rs. 3,85,000/- i.e. Rs. 49,305/- to the Complainant, @12% annum from the day of accident, 07.02.2015 till realisation. Further the O.P. No.3 & 4 are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant within one month. In case of non-payment all the above amount will carry 12% interest w.e.f. 07.02.2015 till realisation.

          Order pronounced 12^th day of July 2022.

          Supply free copies to the parties.