BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.221 of 2015
Date of Instt. 25.05.2015
Date of Decision :21.04.2016
Sarabjit Singh aged about 39 years son of Resham Singh, R/o 196, Uppal Khalsa, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Raga Motors Pvt Ltd., GT Road Paragpur, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.
2. M/s Liberty Videocon General Ins.Co.Ltd., 10th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 through its authorized signatory.
3. M/s Liberty Videocon General Ins.Co.Ltd., Unit No.F.F.-4 A, First Floor, Eminent Mall Complex, 261 Lajpat Nagar, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Present: Sh.Jatinder Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.VK Singla Adv., counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for the OPs No.2&3.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is owner of the vehicle i.e. car Mohindra XUV bearing registration No.PB-08-CW-4000, which he purchased from OP No.1 on 26.9.2014 and the said vehicle was duly insured vide insurance policy No.20000105132 issued on 30.9.2014 and the said policy was valid upto 29.9.2015 from OP No.3. The complainant has purchased the above said vehicle from OP No.1 by availing loan facility from Canara Bank Ltd. Unfortunately, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 19.1.2015 and at that time the vehicle was driven by complainant and the complainant was having valid driving license at the time of accident. After the accident, the said vehicle was lying at OP No.1 and the loss accessed is amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-. Regarding this accident one DDR was also recorded at PS Phillaur, District Jalandhar bearing DDR No.10 dated 3.2.2015. The complainant approached OP No.3, requesting the official concerned to reimburse the amount of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- but the OPs No.2 & 3 linger on the matter with one pretext or the other. The complainant has supplied necessary documents to the OPs as required by OPs but till date the claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed by the OPs despite repeated requests. The complainant also served legal notice through his counsel on 27.2.2015 upon the OPs, but all in vain. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written statements. In its written statement, OP No.1 pleading that the claim is to be settled by the other OPs No.2 & 3 and OP No.1 has got nothing to do with the same, thus, the question of any suffering of the complainant at the hands of the OP No.1 does not arise at all. Rather, the OP No.1 is suffering at the hands of the complainant who is not making the payment and is not taking his vehicle though the same is lying ready after repair and the space of the OP No.1 is occupied unnecessarily for which the complainant is also liable to pay the demurrage. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In their separate joint written statement, OPs No.2 and 3 pleading that the accident took place on 19.1.2015, when the complainant was going for some work driving the insured vehicle, suddenly a stray calf came in front of the vehicle, the complainant tried to save the calf, but the vehicle hit into the calf and his friend travelling with him suddenly hit his hand with the wind screen from inside causing damage to the wind screen. The complainant got one DDR No.10 dated 3.2.2015 recorded at PS Phillaur with respect to accident on 19.1.2015. Whereas in his affidavit dated 4.2.2015, the complainant has stated that accident was not reported to the police. On receipt of intimation of loss to the vehicle, a surveyor/loss assessor namely Manoj Mittal was deputed by OPs No.2 & 3 to assess the loss, but when the said surveyor/loss assessor inspected the damaged vehicle, he found that the loss reported does not match with the actual loss to the vehicle and vide letter dated 2.2.2015 asked the complainant to furnish affidavit that there is no third party loss and furnish photographs of the accidental vehicle at the spot and clarify the mismatch of actual loss and reported loss, but to no avail. The surveyor/loss assessor again wrote to complainant vide letter dated 16.2.2015 giving reference of the previous letter dated 2.2.2015 to clarify the mismatch of the loss to the vehicle and the reported loss, whereupon, the OPs No.2 & 3 received a statement/letter dated 16.2.2015 from complainant changing his version and stating that when the vehicle was being towed away after the accident with Tata 709, the towing rope broke and the insured vehicle struck behind the Tata 709 and thereafter he took the vehicle to the workshop by towing with one Scorpio and in such manner bonnet of his vehicle again damaged and that some one has told him that if he will disclose that the bonnet has been damaged subsequently, his claim will not be passed. The complainant has concealed the material facts and the manner of accident from the OPs No.2 & 3. The alleged accident did not take place in the manner as stated in the claim form. As the surveyor/loss assessor observed that the cause of loss stated by the insured in the claim form did not match with the physical inspection of the damaged vehicle and he assessed the loss on the estimated basis to the tune of Rs.2,65,352/- subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The surveyor/loss assessor also submitted that the cause of loss stated by the insured did not match/coincide with actual damage to the vehicle. The claim of the complainant was repudiated after due application of mind vide letter dated 11.3.2015 and complainant was informed accordingly. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. Further learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavits Ex.OA and Ex.OB alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O11 and evidence of the OPs No.2 & 3 was closed by order.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. From the record, pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Mohindra XUV bearing registration No.PB-08-CW-4000 from OP No.1 and got the same insured from OPs NO.2 & 3 vide policy cover note No.20000105132 Ex.O10 for the period from 30.9.2014 to 29.9.2015. The said vehicle met with an accident on 19.1.2015 when the same was being driven by the complainant having valid driving license. As a result of this accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the police. Resultantly, DDR was recorded by the police at PS Phillaur i.e. DDR No.10 dated 3.2.2015 Ex.C4. The vehicle was taken to OP No.1 for repair and they accessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. The complainant approached the OPs No.2 through OP No.3 to reimburse the amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- but the OP did not reimburse the aforesaid amount to the complainant regarding the loss occurred to the vehicle under the aforesaid insurance policy. The complainant also served legal notice dated 27.2.2015 Ex.C5 through registered post (Postal receipts are Ex.C to Ex.C8) on the OPs but inspite of that OPs failed to settle the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OP No.1 is that the OP No.1 has nothing to do with the insurance policy. So question of suffering of the complainant from the hands of OP No.1, does not arise at all. Rather the OP No.1 is suffering at the hands of the complainant who is not making the payment and is not taking his vehicle though the same is lying ready after repair and the space of the OP No.1 is occupied unnecessarily due to fault on the part of the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of the OPs No.2 & 3 is that they received intimation from the complainant regarding accident of the insured vehicle in question on 19.1.2015 with the averments that suddenly a stray calf came in front of the vehicle on 19.1.2015. The complainant who was driving the aforesaid insured vehicle, tried to save the calf but the vehicle hit into the calf and in the process, his friend travelling with him hit his hand with the wind screen from inside causing damage to the wind screen. The complainant managed to get recorded one DDR No.10 dated 3.2.2015 at PS Phillaur with respect to this accident occurred on 19.1.2015. Whereas the complainant in his affidavit dated 4.2.2015 stated that the accident was not reported to the police. On receipt of this intimation, a surveyor/loss assessor namely Manoj Mittal was deputed by OPs No.2 & 3 to assess the loss occurred to the insured vehicle. When the said surveyor/loss assessor inspected the damaged vehicle, he found that the loss reported does not match with the actual loss to the vehicle. The said surveyor/loss assessor vide letter dated 2.2.2015 Ex.O4 asked the complainant to furnish affidavit and photographs of the accidental vehicle and clarify the mismatch of actual loss and reported loss but complainant did not submit any reply. The surveyor/loss assessor again vide letter dated 16.2.2015 Ex.O5 wrote to the complainant to clarify the mismatch of the loss then OPs No.2 & 3 received letter dated 16.2.2015 Ex.O10 from complainant changing his version and stating that when the vehicle was being towed away after the accident with Tata 709, the towing rope broke and the insured vehicle struck behind the Tata 709 and thereafter he took the vehicle to the workshop by towing with one Scorpio and in such manner bonnet of his vehicle again damaged and that someone has told the complainant that if he disclosed that his bonnet has been damaged subsequently, his claim will not be passed. The complainant has, therefore, concealed the material facts and the manner of accident from the OPs No.2 & 3. So, the alleged accident did not take place in the manner as stated in the claim form. The surveyor/loss assessor, however, accessed the loss occurred to the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,65,352/- vide his report Ex.O7 duly proved by the surveyor/loss assessor vide his affidavit Ex.OB. However, the surveyor/loss assessor also submitted that the cause of loss stated by the insured did not match/coincide with damage to the vehicle. The OPs, therefore, repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 11.3.2015 Ex.O9. The learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his vehicle Mohindra XUV bearing registration No.PB-08-CW-4000 insured with the OPs No.2 & 3 vide insurance policy cover note No.20000105132 issued on 30.9.2014 Ex.C2 for the period from 30.9.2014 to 29.9.2015. As per complainant version, the said vehicle met with an accident on 19.1.2015 when the same was being driven by complainant. The complainant reported the matter to the OPs No.2 & 3. Complainant alleged that on 19.1.2015 suddenly a stray calf came in front of the vehicle, the complainant tried to save the calf but the vehicle hit in the calf and in that process his friend travelling with the complainant hit his hand with the wind screen from inside causing damage to the wind screen. Complainant further submitted that he managed to get recorded one DDR No.10 dated 3.2.2015 at PS Phillaur Ex.C4 also depicts the version of the complainant that suddenly a stray animal came in front of the car on 19.1.2015. The complainant tried to save the stray animal by applying the breaks but the vehicle hit into that stray animal. As a result of this accident, the insured vehicle was damaged. The complainant in this DDR stated that the complainant also suffered some minor injuries but he no where stated that any friend of the complainant was travelling with him in that car and that the hand of that friend of the complainant struck into wind screen as a result of which wind screen was damaged. Moreover, this DDR was got recorded by the complainant on 3.2.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of 15 days. Complainant could not explain the delay in lodging the report to the police regarding this accident. No only this, complainant filed affidavit dated 28.1.2015 Ex.O2 in which the complainant has categorically stated that in this accident nobody did receive any injury. The complainant further filed affidavit dated 4.2.2015 Ex.O3 in which the complainant categorically stated that the accident was never reported by the complainant to any police station nor any police authority has taken cognizance of the accident. Whereas the complainant has managed to get recorded DDR with the police at PS Phillaur Ex.C4 on 3.2.2015. All this shows that the complainant has been changing his version one after the other at every step.
11. On receipt of intimation regarding the accident of the insured vehicle from the complainant, OPs No.2 & 3 appointed surveyor/loss assessor Manoj Mittal to assess the loss occurred to the insured vehicle as a result of aforesaid accident. When the said surveyor/loss assessor inspected the damaged vehicle, he found that the loss reported does not match with the actual loss to the vehicle. The said surveyor/loss assessor vide letter dated 2.2.2015 Ex.O4 asked the complainant to furnish affidavit and photographs of the accidental vehicle and clarify mismatch of actual loss and reported loss but the complainant did not submit any reply. The surveyor/loss assessor again wrote letter dated 16.2.2015 Ex.O5 to the complainant to clarify the mismatch of the loss then the complainant wrote letter dated 16.2.2015 Ex.O8 to the OPs No.2 & 3 in which the complainant changed his entire version regarding the accident and the loss occurred to the vehicle by stating that when the vehicle was being towed away after the accident with Tata 709, the towing rope broke and the insured vehicle struck behind Tata 709 and thereafter he took the vehicle to the workshop by towing with another vehicle i.e. one Scorpio and in such manner bonnet of the vehicle was again damaged. In order to justify the wrong version give by the complainant to the OPs in the claim form, the complainant submitted that someone has told the complainant that if he disclosed that his bonnet of his vehicle was damaged subsequently, his claim would not be passed. But the complainant neither told to the police in the DDR Ex.C4 that the vehicle was again damaged when the same was being taken to the workshop by towing with one Tata 709 vehicle and that the towing rope broke and the insured vehicle struck behind that Tata 709 vehicle. The complainant did not report this matter to the police as to what was the registration number of that Tata 709 vehicle who was the owner of that vehicle, how much amount he had paid to the owner of the vehicle for towing away the vehicle from the accidental place to the workshop nor the complainant reported to the police or to the OPs how much damage was caused to that Tata 709 in that process because that vehicle became unable to tow away the insured vehicle of the complainant to the workshop that is why the complainant has stated that thereafter he took the vehicle to the complainant by towing with some Scorpio. Again complainant has not stated what was the registration number of that Scorpio who was the owner of that Scorpio, what amount the complainant had paid to the owner of that Scorpio for towing away the vehicle from that accidental place to the workshop?
12. Not only this, the complainant has stated that someone has told the complainant that if he disclosed that the bonnet of his car has been damaged subsequently, his claim would not be passed. Again complainant has not mentioned the name of that someone person nor filed any affidavit of that someone person. All this shows that complainant has concealed the facts and he went on changing his version at every step. He has distorted the manner in which accident has taken place that is why he has reported the matter to the police after a elapse a period of 15 days. Further he also did not report to the police true facts regarding the manner in which the accident took place and insured vehicle was damaged. Further he has in his affidavit dated 28.1.2015 Ex.O2 given version that in this accident nobody received any injury. Whereas in the complaint, the complainant has stated that he has also suffered injuries in this accident and one friend travelling with him in that vehicle also suffered injuries but the complainant did not tell the name of that friend nor he produced MLR of that friend of the complainant as to from which hospital he got his treatment. No only this, in affidavit Ex.O3 dated 4.2.2015 the complainant has stated that the accident was never reported to any police station nor any police authority has taken cognizance of this accident. Rather the complainant himself has produced DDR No.10 dated 3.2.2015 at PS Phillaur Ex.C4 which proves that complainant has reported the matter to the police and police had got recorded this DDR and has taken cognizance of the matter. Therefore, the complainant has concealed all these material facts in this affidavits Ex.O2 and Ex.O3.
13. Not only this, when the complainant was asked by the surveyor/loss assessor vide the letters Ex.O4 and Ex.O5 to explain the mismatch of the manner of accident, as a result of which the damage was caused to the insured vehicle. The complainant has totally changed his version vide the letter dated 16.2.2015 Ex.O8 that the vehicle was not badly damaged in that accident on 19.1.2015 but it was damaged when the vehicle was being taken away from the place of accident to the workshop for repair by towing with Tata 709, when the towing rope broke down and the insured vehicle struck behind Tata 709 and thereafter the complainant get the vehicle away to the workshop by towing with one Scorpio. All this shows that the complainant has concealed the material facts and he has been changing his version at every step. As such, the plea of the complainant can not be believed. The OPs has, therefore, rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 11.3.2015 Ex.O9.
14. Consequently, we hold that the present complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
21.04.2016 Member President
