BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint No.303/2017.
Date of instt.:24.11.2017.
Date of Decision: 18.07.2019.
Satwant Singh son of Shri Balwinder Singh resident of Jiwan Nagar, village Damdama Dhookara -37 Damdama, District Sirsa.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1.M/s Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Maruti Suzuki Authorized Dealer), Dabwali Road, Sirsa 125055 (Haryana) through its authorized person.
2.Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited Vishranti Malaram Towers 2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Karapakkam Channai- 600097- Tamil Nadu, through its authorized signature/person.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri A.K.Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.
OP No.1 given up vide order dated 17.07.2019.
Shri R.K.Mehta, Advocate for Op No.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that he had purchased one Swift Dzire VDI BSIV, bearing registration No.HR44J-6888 from Op No.1 which was duly insured with Op No.2 vide package policy No.MOQ1123171 proposal No.87334133 dated 27.12.2016 having validity from 27.12.2016 to 26.12.2017 through Op No.1. Unfortunately, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in the month of March, 2017. The loss was assessed by the surveyor and loss assessor and lateron claim in respect of the damages to the vehicle was paid by Op No.2 to Op No.1 for its repair. Thereafter, the car of the complainant again met with an accident and again surveyor was appointed and claim was lodged with Op No.2 but on 01.09.2017 after a lapse of more than six months the Op No.1 had issued a letter to the complainant that the claim has been rejected by Op No.2. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from private workshop by spending a sum of Rs.1 lac. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 has submitted that the vehicle was sold to the complainant being a dealer and it is not a repair centre. The replying Op has right to claim the parking charges if the vehicle is parked in its venue/premises. The replying Op has only concern with the sale of vehicle and for the repair of the vehicle, the Manager of the Maruti workshop can reply properly, which has not been made party to the present complaint. The replying Op has taken preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint as the same has been filed by concealing the material facts. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not submitted required documents to the replying OP and in the absence thereof, the claim cannot be processed and is completely pre-matured. The complainant has never approached the answering Op and he has also not mentioned the particulars of the accident or the surveyor. It is further submitted that it is not known as to when and by whom the survey was conducted. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant, in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and also tendered documents Ex.C1 postal receipt, Ex.C2 legal notice, job card invoices Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C5, intimation Ex.C6 and copy of RC Ex.C7 whereas on the other hand learned counsel for the Ops have tendered affidavit Raj Kumar Goyal Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Omkar S.Utture Ex.RW2/A, in which, they have deposed in terms of replies filed by the OPs and also tendered documents such as vehicle history Ex.R1, certificate cum policy schedule Ex.R2, registration certificate Ex.R3, application for claim Ex.R4, statement of complainant Ex.R5, claim form Ex.R6, survey and loss assessment report Ex.R7.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.HR44J-6888 was insured with the Op No.2 for the period 27.12.2016 to 26.12.2018. During the validity of the insurance contract, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in the month of March, 2017. Due intimation was given and surveyor was appointed and the claim was paid by the Op No.2. Again the car of the complainant with an accident and again surveyor was appointed and complainant has lodged claim with the insurance company, but however, the claim has not been paid to the complainant due to the reasons best known by the Op No.2.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has strongly contended that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents, as a result of which the claim cannot be settled and paid, but however, learned counsel for the complainant has strongly contested the allegations that the complainant has already submitted the required documents i.e. copy of RC, DL and other necessary papers which were required in the settlement of the claim, but however, the Op No.2 is avoiding to settle the claim despite the fact that the surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and also submitted the report to the Op No.2, but however, the copy of the same has not been supplied to the complainant till date.
8. The OP No.2 has relied upon the report of surveyor Ex.R7 but the report does not bear the signature and seal of the surveyor. The OP has not placed on record any such document from which it could be presumed that after receiving the report of the surveyor any further documents were required by the OP No.2 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant. So, it appears that the OP No.2 is avoiding to settle the claim on one or the other pretext which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2.
9. In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to the Op No.2 to pay & settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order on the basis of surveyor report. If, in case the report submitted by the surveyor is not complete, in that eventuality, it is the legal obligation of the OP No.2 to get the surveyor report from the surveyor at their own end. If any document is required by the Op No.2 for the settlement of the claim, the Op No.2 would serve 7 days prior notice to the complainant and the complainant shall submit the required documents within a further period of 7 days. The Op No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as composite compesation on account of harassment and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:18.07.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
