Delhi

New Delhi

CC/741/2012

R.N. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 741/2012                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

R.N. Sharma,

303, Shikha Apartment,

Plot no. 48, IP Extn.,

Delhi-110092                                                                    ……..COMPLAINANT 

 

                                                                               Versus

1.         Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Marcantile House

                   2^nd floor 15, K.G. Marg

New Delhi.

 

2.           Prime Honda,

Ansal Plaza, Main Link Road,

Vaishali- Ghaziabad                                                                                     ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of car bearing No. DL3CBA-2451 and the said vehicle was duly insured with OP-1 vide policy bearing No.1302712311002626 valid from 29/06/2011 to 28/06/2012. OP had assessed the value of above said vehicle as Rs. 05,13,000/- at the time of Insurance.  

It is alleged that the aforesaid insured vehicle was met with an accident 30/11/2011 near Chappar( near Muzaffar Nagar, UP) in which the complainant and his wife suffered injuries. The local resident informed the police about the incident, the local police reached the spot and requested to remove the vehicle to a safer place to avoid any further lose as such the complainant remove the vehicle by way of crane through Prince Crane Services, the intimation of the loss was given to OP at its Noida office. Till 04/12/2011, nothing was heard on behalf of OP-1 as such by way of email, the complainant requested OP-1 to depute the surveyor and do the needful. ON 07/12/2011, by way of an SMS, OP-1 informed the complainant that one Sanjay Kumar Singh has been deputed for survey and asked to the complainant to cooperate with him. Vide another SMS the OP-1 informed the complainant that one Baljeet Singh has been deputed for survey and asked to the complainant to cooperate with him.

Unfortunately, till 22/12/2011, nothing was done by the OP to remove the vehicle from the accident spot as such the complainant with the help of his staff tow the vehicle by crane and was given to OP-2 for its repair on 23/12/2011.  On 24/11/2012 OP-2 raised its estimate of repair but suddenly connivance with OP-1 raised another estimate amounting to Rs. 04,45,500/-. After repeated follow up, OP-2 raised the enhanced bill of repair charges to the tune of Rs. 03,41,916 against the Rs. 02,41,413/-. The OP-2 in connivance with OP-1 without discussing anything with the complainant asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 01,63,040/- and also stated to the complainant that OP-2 with repair only those damages that was authorized by OP-1, having no other option the complainat paid a sum of Rs. 01,63,000/- to OP-2 on 21/06/2012 and took the delivery of the car without being fully repaired by OP-2. It is stated by the complainant that the OP-2 has taken a long time of approx. 6 months to repair the vehicle in question, hence he is entitled for the damages qua OP-2.

It is further stated by the complainant that as per the insurance contract OP-1 is liable to pay the entire repairing cost i.e. Rs. 03,55,526/- raised by OP-2, hence he is entitled for the reimbursement of the sum of Rs. 01,63,000/- paid to OP-2 alongwith interest on account of deficiency in services besides other reliefs.

Complaint has been contested by both the OPs.  OPs have filed its written statement,

It is stated by OP-1 that the OP-1 has paid the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the surveyor report. The left and back side of the vehicle were not repaired under the same claim as they were the previous damages from earlier incident and no intimation regarding the same was given to the OP, further prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

It is stated by OP-2 that after getting the approval from OP-1 the car was repaired on 23/03/2012 and it was lying in the work shop of OP-2 for considerable period of time because of the dispute regarding the passing of claim by the insurance company. After a considerable time, since the insurance company did not passed the claim and the cost of the same has to be borne by the complainant himself, he approved the said repair and invoice dated 07/06/2012 was raised. On 21/06/2012, finally, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after making the payment.

It is further stated that the delay if any is caused due to the dispute between the complainant and the OP-1 regarding the reimbursement of the claim, hence, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed qua OP-2 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

We have heard argument advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

During the course of the argument, it is argued on behalf of OP-2 that the complainant has no locus standi, he is no more the consumer as he had sold the vehicle in question during the pendency of the present complaint, in support of its contention it has place on record the downloaded copy of the vehicle registration status. Perusal of the same shows that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of one Sh. Utkarsh. It is not disputed by the complainant that he has sold the vehicle during the pendency of the present complaint.

In the present case admittedly the vehicle in question was sold by the complainant on 15/10/2015 to one Sh. Utkarsh. Complainant ought to have disclosed fact of the sale of the vehicle to this Forum or should have sold the vehicle after seeking the permission from this Forum. Admittedly, the complainant sold the vehicle without seeking the permission of this Forum and had not disclosed this fact at any stage of proceedings, neither he informed to this Forum after the sale. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission titled as TATA Motors Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba and Anr. decided on 25/09/2013 in revision petition no. 2562 of 2012.

In view of the above, we are of the view that the complainant did not remain consumer after the sale of the vehicle in question as he has sold the vehicle without the permission of this Forum and has suppressed this fact and has not approached the Forum with clean hands, accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order each be sent to both the parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on     18/03/2020. 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                      (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                     MEMBER