Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 111
Instituted on : 12.03.2018
Decided on : 22.02.2024.
Rajender Singh age around 57 yrs s/o Sh. Sarup Singh, resident of Village and post office Kheri Sadh (Sampla) District Rohtak.
………………….Complainant
Vs.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.. Jawahar Market, In-front-of D. Park, Model Town Rohtak- 124001. E-Mail-nareshsingla@orientalinsurance.co.in Through its Manager.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, Phone Nos. 011-43659595, Through its Manager.
- TATA Motors Finance Limited, 103, 1st Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak-124001. E-mail- Manager. customercare@tmf.co.in. Through its Manager.
- TATA Motors Finance Limited, I-Think Techno Campus Building A, 2nd Floor, Off Pokhran Road No.- 2. Thane (West), 400601 India. E-Mail customercare@tmlfin.com. Through its Manager.
- ….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.3 & 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that his vehicle Tata Indigo ECS, registration no. HR12X0343 was insured from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, bearing policy no.121500/31/2017/02/50002082, issued on 09.05.2016 and commenced from 14.05.2016 midnight to 13.05.2017 by paying Rs.7,476/- for insured declared value (IDV) i.e. Rs.412083/- & financed by the respondents no. 3 & 4. The above said vehicle had met with an accident on 25.04.2017 and at that time complainant's son was driving the said vehicle who got some injuries too and he was treated at Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak. Police complaint was also made regarding the above said accident and same was informed to all respondents well in time. The respondent no. 1 and 2 appointed surveyor, Sh. Rupin Takkar for further proceedings and complainant deposited all the required documents as prescribed. The surveyor told the complainant that his car is total loss and approached the complainant to settle the matter in lump-sum of Rs.3,50,000/- but the complainant requested him to settle it in Rs. 3,75,000/- as the IDV was Rs.4,12,083/-. But later on he received the surveyor's letter dated 12.05.2017 to repair the vehicle from the workshop of complainant's choice. Complainant went to Raj Motors, Rohtak and officials made the estimate of the whole repair work i.e. Rs.16,76,031/- and same has been informed to the respondent no.1 and 2 along with surveyor for rest of the proceedings but they did nothing. The complainant was again very much surprised when he received a phone call from respondent no.3 and 4 that they took/removed the said accidental vehicle from the complainant's yard/gher without his permission. Later on then complainant gave complaint regarding the same to SSP Rohtak, went to concerned police station and made a call to respondent no.3 and 4 toll free no. 18002090188 and respondent no.4 official told the complainant that finance company sold the said vehicle to third party without any permission of complainant whereas the proceedings regarding the claim were in process with respondent no.1 and 2 but they do not inform to insurance company too which is against the policy.. The acts and conducts of the respondents clearly comes under deficiency in service on their part for which they all are liable. A legal notice was also served upon the respondents on 25.02.2018 but no response has been received till date. Despite repeated requests of the complainant claim amount has not been paid to the complainant. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.4,12,083/- on along with the interest @ 18% w.e.f. 25.04.2017 to till the date of final payment, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as an Advocate's consultancy fee and litigation charges and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and damages on account of deficiency in service and also for the mental harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that it is wrong that on 25.04.2017 the vehicle in question met with accident and the son of complainant received the injuries. It is wrong that the police was informed about this accident and all respondents were informed in time. It is admitted that Sh.Rupin Takkar was appointed as surveyor but it is wrong that the insurance company did not co-operate with the complainant. Sh.Rupin Takkar inspect the vehicle in question and asked the insured to took the vehicle in authorized work- shop for repair but in-spite of repeated request and reminders the insured did not co-operate with the surveyor and did not take the vehicle to a work-shop. It is also wrong that the vehicle is total loss and the surveyor wants to settle the claim in a sum of Rs.3.5 lacks. It is also wrong that the complainant went to Raj motors and they estimated the loss of Rs.16,76,031/- and complainant informed respondents No.1 and 2 along with surveyor. It is also wrong that respondents No.3 and 4 sold the vehicle of Rs.40,000/- without permission of the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 & 4 in their reply has submitted that complainant has approached the OPs for advancement of Loan of Rs.150200/- for purchase of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-12X-0343. The opposite parties accepted the loan application of complainant and loan was disbursed. It is further submitted that the complainant had agreed to repay the total contract value of Rs.12,400/- in 48 instalments to be repaid on 27th of every month. It is further submitted that as on 21.08.2018, an amount of Rs.268990.43 (inclusive of Rs.200126.00 towards Contract Value Balance + Rs.68864.43 towards ODC charges) apart from other dues is outstanding against the complainant. The complainant failed to deposit the instalment timely and as a result, matter was referred to an Independent arbitrator and the Hon'ble arbitrator Mr. N.C.Joseph vide its order dated 18-05-2017, provided the interim relief to the respondent with a direction to take the possession of the vehicle in question and thus the vehicle in question was received by the respondent in view of the order dated 18-05-2017. That as stated by the complainant, the matter was reported to the police authorities, but the police authorities after looking into entire circumstances and order passed by the learned arbitrator, opted not to initiate any proceedings as no wrong was done by the respondents. As the complainant opted not to deposit the overdue/outstanding amount, hence the vehicle in question was sold as per the procedure and as per the order from Hon'ble arbitrator Mr. N.C.Joseph. It is submitted that it is the respondent no. l and 2 who had to make the payment for loss suffered in the vehicle in question. It is humbly prayed that Insurance Company be directed to release the payment in the favour of the respondents no. 3 and 4 in view of provisions of IRDA, being the financer of the vehicle. No act and act conduct on the part of respondent is illegal and arbitrary and there does not arise any question of deficiency in service. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.3 & 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.W1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and closed his evidence on 02.07.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 & 2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 10.01.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 3 & 4 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/6 and closed his evidence on 23.10.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the vehicle has been surveyed by the surveyor Sh. Rupen Takkar and he submitted his report with the insurance company on dated 27.11.2017 and assessed the loss in the vehicle in question as Rs.217977/-. He further submitted in his report that he wrote several letters to the complainant with the request to shift the damaged vehicle to a workshop for repair but till date the vehicle has not been shifted in the workshop and the vehicle has not been re- inspected by the surveyor till date. The insurance company placed on record a letter dated 12.05.2017 written by the surveyor to the complainant as Ex.R2. Any courier receipt, postal receipt is not attached with this letter to prove the fact that the letter was served to the complainant. On the other hand complainant’s version is that vehicle comes under the category of total loss and in support of his contention he placed on record an estimate as Ex.C20 amounting to Rs.1676031/-. So the complainant has not shifted the vehicle in the workshop for repair and he believed that the vehicle comes under the category of total loss. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties and came into the conclusion that the surveyor has assessed the loss in the vehicle in question as Rs.217977/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.412083/-. In the present complaint the respondent and complainant has not placed on record any photograph of the damaged vehicle to prove the damages in the vehicle in question.. Moreover the complainant has placed on record a document Ex.C20 an estimate of repair as Rs.1676031/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the loss as assessed by the surveyor. In the present case the complainant impleaded respondent no.3 & 4 who are the financer of the vehicle in question The vehicle has been taken into possession by the respondent no.3 & 4 and sold the same after obtaining order from the Hon’ble Arbitrator Mr. N.C.Joseph and sold the vehicle for an amount of Rs.40000/-. As per the reply affidavit and documents the finance amount alongwith interest and penalty is still outstanding against the complainant. So as per our view complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs. Rs.217977/- alongwith interest from the date of filing till its realisation.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.217977/-(Rupees two lac seventeen thousand nine hundred and seventy seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.03.2018 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses. It is made clear that the alleged awarded amount shall be paid to the financer i.e. opposite party no.3 & 4 for settlement of loan account of the complainant and after settlement of loan account, if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
