BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 138 of 2018                                                                         

                                                 Date of Institution         :    23.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision   :    06.11.2019.

Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Subhash Chander, resident of House No. 206-B, Barnala Road, Police Line, Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Malik Automotives Pvt. Ltd., situated at Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana), through its authorized person.

2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, office at 101, 102 & 103, Natraj Junction of Western Express, Highway & Andheri- Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400069, through its Authorized Signatory/ person.

3. HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch office at Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.

SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……….. MEMBER  

Present:       Sh. Neeraj Sisodia,  Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 3.

Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant had purchased one Etios Liva car from op no.1 and op no.1 allured the complainant to get insured his car with op no.2 with the assurance that in case of any damage caused to the car, he will not face any problem as op no.1 of its own will redress the grievance of complainant through op no.2. The complainant got insured his aforesaid car bearing registration No.HR-24V/1808 with op no.2 comprehensively vide package policy no. TSB/ 30027456 dated 26.10.2015 for the period 26.10.2015 to 25.10.2016. The said vehicle was purchased by complainant from op no.1 after hypothecating the same with op no.3 and op no.3 has made full payment to op no.1. That on 17.1.2016, the aforesaid car of complainant met with an accident and was damaged extensively and information was given to insurance company through local agent and the claim was accordingly lodged with op no.2. The company had appointed the surveyor and loss assessor in order to assess the loss to the car and later on as per the report of surveyor and engineer, the loss was assessed as total IDV and claim in respect of the damages was passed by op no.2 and as per policy issued by op no.2 to the complainant, the insured declared value of car is Rs.6,12,235/-. It is further averred that insurance company got assessed market value of the car, which was assessed as Rs.2,51,000/- and complainant kept the car with him after settling the matter with op no.2 and after deducting the price of accidental car, an amount of Rs. 3,61,235/- (6,12,235 minus 2,51,000/- = 3,61,235/-) was agreed to be paid by op no.2 to the complainant. The op no.2 issued a letter to op no.3 and demanded NOC from op no.3 alongwith loan documents with Bank and branch name etc. upon which op no.3 has issued NOC and also provided all the documents to op no.2 for passing of claim and further op no.2 had assured the complainant that they will sanction the claim of vehicle of complainant as early as possible but now i.e. after lapse of more than two years, op no.1 has stated to the complainant that op no.2 has rejected the claim of complainant without giving any sufficient reason. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops one by one and requested to pay the claim but ops always put off the matter with one pretext or the other and have caused harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statements. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that at the time of purchase of car, the complainant desired to get his car insured with op no.2 and accordingly his car was insured with op no.2. The answering op has nothing to do with op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.

3.                Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has not provided the desired documents i.e. NEFT detail of the financer and loan outstanding statement of insured vehicle as on date. The delay of the settlement of the claim is on the part of complainant and not on the part of answering op, therefore, op is not liable to settle the claim of complainant. It is further submitted that complainant himself stated that he lodged the claim with op no.1 and not with op no.2. As the complainant has not supplied requisite documents after several reminders dated 8.7.2016, 4.8.2016, 16.8.2016, as such finally claim was closed due to non submission of requisite documents and closure letter was sent to the complainant on 25.8.2016. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

4.                Op no.3 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering op. There is no privity of contract between op no.2 and op no.3. The complainant has availed a financial loan from answering op and for that he has executed a loan agreement in favour of answering op. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and was under legal obligation to pay the amount of installment in time as per the repayment schedule. It is further submitted that if the complainant is having any grouse or complaint against answering op, in that case as per terms and conditions of loan agreement, there is an arbitration clause and he can raise dispute before the Arbitrator only. However, he has settled his loan account with answering op on his own and paid the settlement amount, hence, now he is estopped by his act and conduct from raising any issue against answering op. The settlement of insurance claim in respect of claim of complainant is to be done by insurance company and answering op has no role to play in the settlement of the claim. The complainant is not at any issue with answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied for want of knowledge and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.                The parties then led their respective evidence.

6.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on file copies of receipts Ex.C1, Ex.C2, copy of invoice Ex.C3, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C4. copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C5, copy of letter Ex.C6, copy of policy schedule Ex.C7, copy of letter Ex.C8 and copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Sharma, Senior Manager Law as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. C.R. Malik, Manager/ Authorized Officer as Ex.R2. Op no.2 produced copy of letter dated 25.8.2016 Ex.R3, copy of letter dated 16.8.2016 Ex.R4, copy of letter dated 4.8.2016 Ex.R5 and copy of letter dated 8.7.2016 as Ex.R6.

7.                Admittedly, the complainant is owner of a Car Etios Live bearing registration No. HR-24V/1808 which was insured with opposite party no.2 for the period 26.10.2015 to 25.10.2016. On 17.1.2016, the car of complainant met with an accident. Due intimation was given to the ops and op no.2 had appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report, but however, claim was not settled and paid as the requisite documents for settlement of claim were not submitted as alleged by op no.2. The op no.2 had closed the claim file due to non production of the documents which were required to be supplied vide letters dated 8.7.2016, 4.8.2016 and 16.8.2016.

8.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 insurance company has stated at bar that company is still ready and willing to settle the claim in case documents are supplied by complainant well within time. Learned counsel for complainant has also stated at bar that complainant has supplied copies of documents and he is still willing to supply the documents.

9.                In view of above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the complainant to supply required documents as per letters dated 8.7.2016, 4.8.2016 and 16.8.2016 to the opposite party no.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The op no.2 insurance company is directed to settle and pay claim of complainant by reopening the claim file on the basis of surveyor report within 45 days from the date of receipt of documents, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the payable amount from the date of order till actual payment. However, complaint against ops no.1 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in open Forum.                                                                          President,

Dated:06.11.2019.                       Member                 Member           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.