Haryana

Karnal

CC/567/2021

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Patil & Company - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.567 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.12.10.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 05.11.2024

 

Joginder Singh son of Shri Multan Singh, resident of Ramgarh Dera, Amupur, District Karnal-132024, age 35 years. Aadhar card no.8526 3805 9949.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. Patil & Company (New Holland and Tractor Agency) Meerut Road, Karnal through its proprietor/partner.

 

2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Natraj-301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069 through its Manager.

 

3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO no.388-389, 1^st floor, BDD International, Karnal Commercial Complex, Old Mugal Canal. Sector-13, Karnal through its Manager.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri R.K. Mehla, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Gourav Sharma, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OPs no.2 & 3.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

 

             The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has purchased a tractor from OP no.1, vide invoice/bill no.GST/20-21/065 dated 21.09.2020 and same has been insured from OPs no.2 and 3, vide policy no.P05210920142553 which was purchased on the assurance of OP no.1 on the same day. OP no.1 received registration charges alongwith other documents from complainant and told that within 10-12 days OP no.1 handover the registration certificate of said tractor to complainant. On 29.09.2020, the said vehicle of complainant met with an accident and has been totally damaged and information in this regard was given to OPs.  The surveyor of the OPs visited the spot of accident and after that OP no.1 has taken the said vehicle into agency and demanded Rs.2,50,000/- approximately for its repair and told that within 2 months they repaired the tractor. It is further averred that complainant told to OP no.1 that he is an urgent need of said tractor for agriculture purpose and then OP no.1 suggest to complainant to purchase new tractor after depositing the repair charges/estimate amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and same has been returned to complainant when claim has been passed by the insurance company i.e. OPs no.2 & 3. After assurance of OP no.1, complainant purchased new tractor which is also insured with OPs no.2 and 3, vide policy no.P05141020156550, valid from 14.10.2020 to 13.10.2021 and also adjusted the financed amount, registration charges, insurance charges etc. in new tractor. Till today OP no.1 has not issued the registration certificate nor given copy of invoice and other relevant documents of said new tractor to complainant after repeated requests and also did not pay the said insurance claim amount to complainant and postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 09.09.2021 but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direct to the OPs to issue registration certificate of said new tractor, to release the claim amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss and harassment suffered by the complainant and in lieu of for mental pain, agony and loss of time and to pay Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the dispute is between the complainant and the insurance company i.e the OPs no.2 and 3 because the selling company is not at all responsible/liable for insurance claim after sale of the vehicle. At the time of purchase of any vehicle, the insurance company representative approach the customer there and then and persuade him/her for insurance from their insurance company. In the present case also, the complainant himself talked with the insurance company for insurance of his newly purchase vehicle. Regarding insurance certificate, it is submitted that the registration charges as per Government orders are to be paid by the customer concerned for Temp. RC/registration of the vehicle thereof but in the case of the complainant, the complainant did not make payment of the registration charges at the time of purchase of the vehicle and said that the same will be paid lateron despite the fact that the complainant was clearly told that the RC cannot be issued/applied until and unless the registration fee is deposited. It is denied that OP had received the charged on account of RC on the same date i.e. date of purchase from the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant had bought to the damaged tractor to the premises of the OP saying that it has met with an accident and requested to repair the same. Accordingly, as per request of the complainant, the Estimate was prepared and handed over to the complainant. The complainant asked the OP about the amount involved in case he wants to purchase a new tractor, then the OP told that it is between him and the insurance company to get claim of the damaged vehicle, in case he wants to purchase a new tractor, he is required to pay the cost of the new vehicle. The complainant opted to purchase a new tractor saying that he will settle the claim of previous tractor with the insurance company at his own. This time also, the complainant himself negotiated with the insurance company. It is further pleaded that there is no provision of adjusting any amount of Registration etc. it is for the purchaser of the vehicle to deposit the registration charges of the vehicle with the company to get the RC. The complainant did not pay the registration charges of the vehicle to the OP. As far as claim amount of his old damaged tractor is concerned, after sale of the vehicle the company is not responsible for “insurance claim”. It is for the insurance company to see and settle the accident claim of insurance with the customer. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after getting the intimation regarding loss, OPs immediately appointed an independent IRDA approved licensed surveyor namely Mr. B.B. Chawla, for survey and loss assessment of vehicle. After survey and loss assessment said surveyor submitted his report and after receiving report it has been come to know that claim the complainant is not maintainable due to following reasons:

.       Complainant purchased vehicle on 21.09.2020.

.       Complainant’s vehicle met with accident on 29.09.2020.

.       Complainant applied for the registration of vehicle on 30.09.2020 and registration certificate was issued on 01.10.2020.

By the aforesaid observations, it is confirmed that the insured vehicle was not registered either with temporary registration number or permanent registration number as on the date of accident. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question was not having any valid temporary registration or permanent registration certificate at the time of accident and hence was not carrying any registration mark on it. This is violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. There is also violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so the claim of complaint being not maintainable was repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter dated 24.11.2020. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice dated 21.09.2020 Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy no.PO5210920142553 Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of insurance policy no.P5141020156550 Ex.C4, photographs Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, legal notice dated 09.09.2021 Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2023 by suffering separate statement..

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Saini Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 01.04.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai, Manager Legal Ex.RW1/A, copy of claim form Ex.R1, copy of survey report Ex.R2, copy of tax invoice Ex.R3, copy of vehicle history report Ex.R4, copy of repudiation letter dated 24.11.2020 Ex.R5, copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 01.04.2024 by suffering separate statement.

 8.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 21.09.2020 complainant purchased the tractor from the OP no.1 and got insured the same from OPs no.2 &3. OP no.1 also received the registration charges and assured the complainant, the registration certificate duly handed over within 10 or 12 days. On 29.09.2020, the said tractor met with an accident and totally damaged. The intimation was given to the OPs. On the assurance of OP no.1, complainant purchased a new tractor after depositing the repair charges of Rs.2,50,000/- but till today neither OP no.1 has supplied the registration certificate of the vehicle nor OPs no.2 and 3 paid the claim amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant purchased the tractor from the OP and got insured the same with the OP no.2. As per Government instructions, registration charges will be paid by the complainant to the Registration Authority. Complainant did not make payment of registration charges at the time of purchasing of the vehicle. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on receipt of the intimation regarding the loss, OPs appointed a surveyor namely B.B. Chawla for survey and loss assessment of the vehicle. As per the surveyor report, the claim of the complainant was not maintainable because insured vehicle was not registered either or temporary registration number as on the date of accident. Hence the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, complainant purchased a vehicle from the OP no.1 and got insured the same with the OP no.2. It is also admitted that during the subsistence of the insurance, the vehicle met with an accident and badly damaged.

14.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs (insurance company), vide repudiation letter Ex.R5 dated 24.11.2020 on the following grounds, which are reproduced as under:-

“We draw your attention towards the own damage claim intimation lodged with our company on 29.09.2020, the insured vehicle was inspected by IRDA licensed independent surveyor Mr.B.B. Chawla at M/s Patial & Company, Karnal.

On scrutiny of the survey report and claim documents furnished by you, following are the observations:

.       The insured vehicle was purchased on 21.09.2020.

.       Insured vehicle met with accident on 29.09.2020.

.       You applied for the registration of insured vehicle on 30.09.2020 & registration certificate issued on 01.10.2020 i.e. after the reported date of loss.

From the above observations, it is confirmed that  the insured vehicle was registered as on date of accident.

Subject vehicle was not having any valid temporary registration or permanent registration certificate at the time of accident and hence was not carrying any registration mark on it. This led to the violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehcile Act, 1988.

We regret, consequently, that we are unable to consider this claim.”

15.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the above mentioned ground. Complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 21.09.2020 and insured vehicle met with an accident on 29.09.2020. Complainant applied for registration of the insured vehicle on 30.09.2020 and Registration Certificate has been issued on 01.10.2020. As per Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the period for applying the Registration Certificate is one month and complainant has applied and obtained the Registration Certificate within stipulated period prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the plea taken by the OPs has no force.

Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and when insured amount is claimed, they make such type of excuses. Thus, the denial of the claim of complainant is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, wherein the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

16.           Keeping in view, the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgment, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the act of the OPs (i.e. insurance company), while repudiating the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine one.

17.           Complainant claimed Rs.2,50,000/- on account of repair charges of insured vehicle but in this regard he has failed to place on file any documentary evidence. Rather, OPs got surveyed the vehicle in question through surveyor namely B.B. Chawla and as per the survey report Ex.R2, the tentative liability of the OPs has been assessed for the tune of Rs.1,28,718/-. Hence, the report of the surveyor will prevail. In this regard we relied upon the authority 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of this authority as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs are liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest, compensation for mental, pain agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

18.           Complainant has also alleged that he had paid the Registration Charges to the OP no.1 at the time of purchasing the tractor but OPs no.1 has not got prepared the Registration Certificate of the tractor. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The version of the complainant is relied upon the tax invoice Ex.C1. On perusal of the said tax invoice, it reveals that OP No.1 has charged only the sale price of the vehicle in question and had not charged the registration charges. Except said tax invoice, there is nothing on the file, to ascertain that complainant has paid the registration charges to the OP no.1 at the time of purchase of the tractor. Hence, the plea taken by the complainant has gone unproved.

19.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.2 &3 (i.e. insurance company) to pay Rs.1,28,718/- (Rs. one lakh twenty eight thousand seven hundred eighteen only) as loss assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 24.11.2020 till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complaint qua OP no.1 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:05.11.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                      Member                        Member