DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 229/2018  

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this order the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service in not reimbursing the accidental claim of Rs.6,31,389/- w.r.t. his vehicle DL 7CM 4614.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he is the registered owner of vehicle having registration number DL 7CM 4614 and had a policy from the OP1 which was valid upto 22.10.2018 for ID Value of Rs.6,31,389/- which vehicle was purchased from OP2 however the said vehicle met with an accident on the intervening night of 24.02.2018 at Dilshad Garden in which the complainant was severely injured and an FIR No.126/2018 was also registered at PS Seema Puri on 24.02.2018 and information of the same was given to the OP1 whereafter surveyor was appointed and all the documents asked by OP1 was given to him for timely redressal of the complaint but his claim was not reimbursed and when he contacted the OP1, it initially had kept the matter for long period and when he issued a legal notice through his advocate thereby claiming Rs.6,31,389/- and in response to the legal notice OP sent a letter rejecting the claim without any reasonable cause interalia stating that the statement of the driver of the insured vehicle made by the claimant in the claim form was found false and it is stated that the surveyor /investigator deliberately and intentionally ignored the final report submitted by the Police where it is specifically mentioned that vehicle was being driven by the driver of the complainant. He also contacted OP2 w.r.t. his claim but OP2 also did not help him out and on the one hand OP is not releasing the claim whereas on the other hand he had to pay heavy bank loan EMIs as the  vehicle was purchased by taking loan and therefore having finding no other option he has filed the present complaint inter alia praying that OP be directed to reimburse the claim of Rs.6,31,389/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigations expenses of Rs.55,000/-. 
2. Both the OPs were served and OP1 has filed its reply inter alia stating preliminary objection that at the time of accident there were two persons travelling in the vehicle and vehicle was allegedly being driven by one Mr. Nasir and the claim form read with statement of complainant show that complainant and Mr. Nasir both were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident and after the OP appointed a licensed independent surveyor and loss assessor who inspected the damaged vehicle to quantify the extent of damage, it came to the tune of Rs.473698/- but since there was smell of Alcohol and also doubt qua the driver of the vehicle, another investigator M/s Jyoti Investigators, was appointed for fact finding enquiry and on the basis of MLC of Mr. Nasir he was found that the patient was sitting in the backseat of the vehicle and the complainant himself was under the influence of alcohol and therefore since there was smell of alcohol as per the MLC the facts given by the complainant were not correlated with other facts and as such claim was repudiated rightfully.
3. As far as merits are concerned, complainant is owner of the vehicle, he got the policy, paid the premium and his car met with an accident on the said date is not disputed and in addition to further facts it is submitted that on 25.02.2018 the complainant’s daughter Ms. Anchal Gupta intimated at the call centre regarding accident of vehicle at 12:30 stating the vehicle was being driven by Mr. Nasir and she also informed that there were three occupants in the insured vehicle at the time of accident. 
4. Contents of preliminary objection are reiterated w.r.t. the person who was driving the vehicle and w.r.t. the complainant who was under the influence of alcohol and therefore since there was mis-statement the claim was rightfully rejected. 
5. OP2 has also filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties whereas OP2 has no role to play in the reimbursement of claim against the policy issued by OP1 and even otherwise there is no deficiency on the part of OP2 alleged in the entire complaint. He has also denied the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission inter alia stating that OP1 is not having its office within the jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore this Commission does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. As far as merits are concerned apart from the admission that complainant had purchased the vehicle from OP2 all facts are stated to be not relevant qua OP2 and are relevant to OP1 only and it is stated that complaint of the complainant be dismissed against OP2.      
6. Complainant has filed replication to the written statement of OP1 interalia denying the contents of written statement and it is interalia submitted that discharge summary at the hospital was wrongly mentioned that patient was sitting in the back seat of the vehicle and it is reiterated that Mr. Nasir was a driver of the vehicle and accordingly it is specifically mentioned that investigation report as filed by the investigator is incorrect and is filed without any basis that too in contradiction with the statement recorded by the IO and nothing was concealed from OP1 and therefore claim of the complainant be allowed.
7. Complainant has filed its own evidence by way of affidavit and OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Ashish Singh Tomar, the legal manager of the OP1, Sh. Rajiv Kaushik the Surveyor and Charanjeet Singh of Jyoti Investigators and has reaffirmed their investigation and surveyor report.   
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
9. Since, there is no document of getting the vehicle repaired on record, the Commission enquired from the counsel for the complainant for explaining the facts w.r.t. exact amount spent upon repairs but the matter was thereafter kept for reporting the settlement which could not be possible and ultimately the counsel for complainant informed the Commission that the vehicle was not repaired and as per the direction of OP, the salvage has been sold to someone.  The Commission on further enquiry as to which is the document by which salvage has been sold on the direction of OP, it was informed that there is no document on Commission’s file to that effect. No doubt the vehicle has met with an accident and there the report of the surveyor w.r.t. assessment of the losses occurred to the vehicle but the insurance Company has to indemnify the vehicle on the basis of amount spent on repair. It is not mentioned in the entire complaint as to how much amount was spent on repair and therefore the Commission cannot assess the amount to be indemnified by insurance Company in absence of that documents.  Moreover, once the salvage has been sold by the complainant without the permission of the commission during the pendency of the proceedings, the relevant fact which may arise is as to whether the complainant is still the consumer of the OP or not. Law is well settled.

The Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.2562 of 2012 in Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Raj & Anr. (In case vehicle was sold which is in question) held that:

In the light of above observations, we find that as complainant did not remain consumer after sale of vehicle and he has sold the vehicle without permission of the District Forum and has suppressed this fact and has not approached the courts with clean hands, complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that complainant at present is no more a consumer nor he has any document on the Commission record showing that as to how much amount he has spent on repair, nor he has not been able to prove the extent of damages, the amount spent on the repairs and even also how he is a consumer.  Therefore, once the vehicle has been sold by the complainant he does not remain a consumer and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 26.06.2024.