Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.04.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount i.e. Rs. 6,53,344/- along with 24% interest per month till its decision.
- To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lakh only ) as compensation.
- To pay Rs. 2,50,000/- ( Rs. Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a Hyundai Verna Car after payment of Rs. 6,53,344/- on 29.10.2010 from opposite party no. 1 vide annexure – 1. The aforesaid car was purchased through opposite party no. 3 i.e. Axis Bank. The said loan amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- was paid directly to opposite party no. 1 as will appear from annexure – 2 and the balance amount of Rs. 51,000/- was paid to opposite party no. 1 through ICICI Bank. After full and final payment of the said purchased car opposite party no. 1 supplied sale certificate to the complainant vide annexure – 3. The manufacturer certificate has been annexed as annexure – 4.
It is further case of the complainant that the aforesaid car was insured with opposite party no. 4 vide annexure –5. The aforesaid insured policy covered the period of 29.10.2010 to 28.10.2011 and was for the period of one year for total car value of Rs. 5,84,250/-. The said car was registered vide annexure – 6 with D.T.O., Patna. Unfortunately the aforesaid car met an accident on 13.01.2010 and the complainant immediately gave information to customer care of opposite party no. 4 as well as the information was also given to opposite party no. 1 and 3.
It is also the case of the complainant that the insurance office allotted claim no. 2101252655 and the officials of insurance company as well as its surveyor surveyed the damaged car at the place of occurrence. Thereafter opposite party no. 4 supplied a claim form and advised to file a claim form with detailed estimate from Hyundai workshop ( opposite party no. 2 ) which was submitted on 16.11.2010 by the complainant in the office of opposite party no. 4.
The opposite party no. 2 also supplied a detailed estimate of damaged car of Rs. 7,97,761/- and the said estimate was submitted in the office of opposite party no. 4 vide annexure – 7. Thereafter claim manager Mr. Akhileshwar and surveyor Mr. Alok i.e. opposite party no. 7 and Mr. Kaushal (Opposite party – 8) visited the workshop on 11.01.2011 and after reinspection compelled the complainant to get repaired the damaged car. Thereafter Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh ( Sale Manager of opposite party no. 2 ) sent a SMS on 13.01.2011 stating that the car cannot be repaired with 0% error and same SMS was forwarded to Branch Manager as well as claim manager i.e. opposite party no. 4 and 5. Thereafter the complainant requested the insurance company to settle the claim.
The complainant surprisingly received a letter from opposite party no. 4 vide annexure – 8 with a direction to dismantle the same car in M/s Ashiana Hyundai workshop. Thereafter the complainant gave a legal notice to opposite party no. 4 and other opposite parties which has been marked as annexure – 9.
It is further case of the complainant that opposite party no. 4 again issued a letter which have been annexed as annexure – 10 with same content as in the previous letter on 18.01.2011 i.e. ( annexure – 8 ). Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to opposite party no. 2 regarding dismantle of the said vehicle as per direction of opposite party no. 4 vide annexure – 10.
The complainant also vide annexure – 11 and 12 sent a letter to opposite party no. 2 with a request to dismantle the vehicle and in that he annexed the copy of annexure – 10. Thereafter complainant requested several times to opposite parties to settle his claim but the opposite parties issued a reminder vide annexure – 13 stating that this was a final reminder and the complainant also annexed a letter of opposite party no. 4.
The complainant has also received a letter from opposite party no. 2 stating therein that he has received no instruction about the dismantle of the aforesaid car.
On behalf of opposite party no. 4 to 7 a written statement has been filed, in para – 3 of which the following facts have been asserted “ that the complainant was requested to get the vehicle dismantled vide letter dated 18.01.2011 ( annexure – 8, page 32 of complaint petition ), 06.02.2011 ( annexure – 10, page 35 of complaint petition ), 23.02.2011 ( annexure – 13, page 38 of complaint petition), 13.04.2011 ( annexure – 16, page 41 of complaint petition ) so that loss can be properly be assessed.” Opposite party no. 4 to 7 have also asserted in the written statement that without dismantling the vehicle loss cannot be assessed and if opposite party no. 1 is not willing to repair the vehicle then the complainant can give the vehicle to Krish Hyundai Motors whose show room is located in Kankarbagh.
From record it appears that when opposite party no. 1, 2, 3 and 8 did not appeared despite registered notice then vide order dated 28.06.2012 a direction was passed to hear the case exparte against opposite party no. 1, 2, 3 and 8. From order sheet dated 16.09.2014 it further transpires that opposite party no. 1 and 2 did not appeared despite service of Dasti notice and in the aforementioned circumstances the case was heard.
We have narrated the facts of the case of both the parties briefly in forgoing paragraphs.
The insurance policy i.e. annexure – 5 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident took place within the covering period of annexure – 5. It is not denied that after the occurrence, the complainant promptly reported about the mis - happening to all concerned opposite parties.
It is the case of the complainant that as per advice of the insurance company the car was sent to the service centre i.e. opposite party no. 2 and it is not in dispute that after the occurrence the insurance officials as well as surveyor visited the place of occurrence and after seeing the damaged car advised to obtain estimate from opposite party no. 2. It is also not in dispute that vide annexure – 7 the Ashiana Automobile (opposite party no. 2) submitted an estimate to the tune of Rs. 8,97,761/-.
The grievance of the complainant is that after the submission of estimate vide annexure – 7 as per advice of opposite party no. 4, the complainant was again informed to get the car dismantle by opposite party no. 2. In Para – 18 of complaint petition it has been asserted by complainant that Service Manager of opposite party no. 2 informed opposite party no. 4 that the car cannot be repaired with 0% error. We fail to understand that when the Service Manager of opposite party no. 2 clearly informed the insurance officials that the car cannot be repaired with 0% error then what was the need to dismantle the car when the agency authorized by opposite party no. 4 refused to renovate it with 0% error.
We have also noted the fact that complainant has also requested opposite party no. 2 to dismantle the car as per wish of opposite party no. 4 vide annexure – 8 and 10 and then the car was not dismantled and now the insurance officials are directing the complainant to get the car dismantle again by another agency.
The aforesaid fact clearly shows that opposite parties ( insurance company i.e. opposite party no. 4 to 8 ) are deliberately harassing the complainant by not paying the insurance amount on one pretext on other.
A simple citizen and innocent person suffers much when he is being harassed for no fault of his own as will appear in this case. We are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the complainant that these tactics are being played on the complainant by mighty opposite parties to force him to settle the claim for meager amount.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above we find and hold that aforesaid conduct of opposite parties has resulted in deficiency on their part.
We direct the opposite party no. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 insurance company i.e. Reliance Insurance General Company jointly and severally to pay the insured amount i.e. Rs. 5,84,250/- covered under annexure – 5 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to extent indicated above.
Member President
