Delhi

North East

CC/265/2013

Shri Sanjeev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raghuvanshi Motors - Opp.Party(s)

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 265/13

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Sanjeev S/o Sh. Ramfal H.NO. 333, Gali No. 6, A-Block, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110093.		Complainant
		Versus
	1       2       3	Raghuvanshi Motors ZB-11/487, Main GT Road, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi-110095   National Insurance Co. C-32, Community Centre, Naraina Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028   Mahindra Finance Plot No. 2, 2nd Floor, Plaza-2, LSC, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, East Delhi, Delhi-110091.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		02.09.2013
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		02.11.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		08.11.2017

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

Order by Shri N.K.Sharma, President:-

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar against M/s. Raghuvanshi Motors- OP1, M/s. National Insurance Co - OP2 & Mahindra Finance - OP3, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a vehicle Tata Indigo bearing Registration No. UP-17-T-5461 (issued from Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh) from OP1 on 11.11.2012 by paying sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to OP1 and the remaining amount was got financed from OP3. The above mentioned vehicle was insured with OP2. As per the complainant, the total value of vehicle was 5,51,000/-. The complainant further stated that on 23.04.2013 at 11:30 a.m. when the complainant was driving the above mentioned vehicle from Baghpat, U.P. to Delhi, suddenly smoke started emitting from the side of bonnet of said vehicle and soon thereafter the vehicle caught fire and was engulfed in flames. The  complainant, thereafter removed the vehicle to Magna Tata Showroom at East Gokulpuri, Wazirabad, Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110094 and informed the OP2. The complainant states that he was charged Rs. 5000/- by Tata Magna Showroom owner Shri Sunil Sharma who also called up the surveyor to survey the vehicle and to assess the loss of the same. The complainant has also stated in complaint that when he inquired from OP2 about when he could get the vehicle, he was told by OP2 that he will only get the claim against the same and not the vehicle. The complainant has stated that he was made to run from pillar to post by the OPs and Magna Tata Showroom for five months and OP3 has been pressurizing the complainant to pay the monthly installments with respect to said vehicle which the complainant has bought with great difficulty on interest bearing loan and has been rendered unemployed. Lastly, the complainant in his complaint stated that he was working in Chanson Company and was earning Rs. 47,000/- and because of loss of his vehicle, the complainant is suffering a loss of Rs. 5,95,000/- as also mental pain and tension.

2. Notice was issued to all the OPs. However, only OP2 filed its reply and OP1 & OP3 were exempted from appearing and contesting the case. The OP2 in its reply revealed that OP2 had passed loss / damage as assessed on the basis of report dated 14.07.2013 (Ex RW1/C) of government approved surveyor and loss assessor Shri Mukesh Kumar Goel who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,99,500/- on net of salvage basis against the insured declared value (IDV) of Rs. 4,92,550/- of the said vehicle. Most importantly, OP2 apprised this Forum regarding the “LETTER OF CONSENT” (Ex RW1/B) given by the complainant for the said amount and duly signed by the complainant. The OP2, thereafter, vide letter dated 03.10.2013 wrote to complainant and intimated him that his claim for Rs. 3,99,500/- has been agreed for settlement by the competent authority subject to completion/ submission of following documents to enable OP2 to make the above mentioned payment ;

1. NOC from financier as the financier is involved in complaint.
2. Surrender the RC in concerned RTO
3. Proof of residential address and 2 photographs
4. Duly signed and stamped NEFT form and discharge voucher which were enclosed with the letter.

3. OP further submitted that the complainant himself had agreed to retain (or sell) the salvage with him without RC i.e. Registration Surrender Certificate shall be provided to Insurer after taking it from concerned RTO and had agreed to finalize the claim for Rs. 3,99,500/- net on salvage basis which fact was concealed by the complainant from this Forum to make out illegal gains and therefore, the present complaint suffers from virus of “suggestion falsie and suppresso varie”. OP further stated that the claim amount was passed and the complainant was asked to comply with the above mentioned (A to D) formalities to enable the OP to release the payment but the complainant chose not to comply with the formalities and has rather filed this frivolous complaint before us to mint out illegal money from OP2.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the contents of complaint and apparently after being confronted with the surveyor report and his consent letter, took the plea that he was an illiterate person and just signed wherever the surveyor directed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
5. The evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP2 alongwith the evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the Surveyor and loss assessor Shri Mukesh Kumar Goel.  Written Arguments were also filed by both the parties.
6. We have heard the oral arguments and have perused the file very carefully. Only fact which appear to in dispute is the amount of compensation which is bone of contention between the parties. The rival contention between the parties from the complainant’s perspective primarily is that the complainant has stated that as per page 11 of the surveyor report filed by OP2 the surveyor has stated that the complainant was ready to accept a sum of Rs. 4,92,050/- for settlement of claim but the surveyor has made a false claim that the complainant was ready to retain the salvage of the vehicle with him and agreed to finalize his claim for Rs. 4,00,000/- which is incorrect and denied and therefore, there is no question of accepting Rs. 4,00,000/-. Further, the complainant argued that if the expected salvage value of the vehicle in question is approximate Rs. 45,000/- (as per para Y of Surveyor Report) and for the sake of arguments it the complainant is ready to keep the salvage, then also the complainant is entitled to Rs. 4,47,050/- and further Rs. 10,000/- on surrendering the Registration of vehicle in favour of OP2 (as per Para Z) of Surveyor Report. The complainant further argued that the vehicle was insured with OP2 by Policy                                    No. 25331031120150004373 after payment of premium of Rs. 26,460/- and by not paying the claim of complainant on time and harassing him by offering less amount, the OP2 has caused deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for Rs. 4,92,000/- from date of accident alongwith interest @24% per annum till realization and has further sought Rs. 6,00,000/- as damages for loss of income and harassment.
7. The rival contention of OP2 is reproduction of the written statement filed by them in which the claim for Rs. 3,99,500/- on net of salvage basis was approved by OP2 on the basis of report of government approved surveyor in favour of complainant subject to furnishing of certain documents as above mentioned paragraph which complainant failed to complied with. In addition, the OP2 has relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in the matter Nand Kishore Lakhotia Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd 1998 CPJ 15 NC and Ligan Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2003) CPJ 26 NC in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that they do not sit in judgment on the report of the surveyor and that if the insured is not satisfied with the amount as assessed by the surveyor then he can approach a Civil Court for claiming the balance amount. In case of Amrendra Mishra & Anr Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd, Hon’ble National Commission held that “We are not inclined to award any sum over and above the amount as recommended by the surveyor for we have to keep certain facts in mind. The person running a workshop would like to inflate the cost of such repairs in their own interest and in inclination of the insured in making the attempt to convert the vehicle as good as totally new vehicle”. After hearing the parties and careful perusal of the case file and application of judicial mind, we are of the considered view that OP2 has offered a bonafide, fair and justified compensation of Rs. 3,99,500/- to the complainant as per the surveyor report. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Sardar Gurumeet Singh 2004 Vol. III, CPJ 46 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission held that the surveyors are appointed by Insurance Companies and the reports are to be given due importance and that one should have sufficient ground not to agree with the assessment made by them. In Surya Chem Inds. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. (2007) Vol. I CPJ 278 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission held that the Surveyor’s Report being an important document has to be given due relevance and importance unless it is rebutted by some cogent evidence.  Also in Vijaya Deepthi Ginning Mill Vs New India Assurance India Ltd. (2006) 3 CPR 184 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission held that since the amount awarded was in tune with the surveyor’s report and that the complainant agreed himself for the same, it was held that it was admitted amount of loss. National Commission therefore, held that there was no reason to discard the surveyor’s report in absence of any other creditable evidence contrary to same.
8. The complainant cannot take advantage of his act of commission (consent letter for accepting compensation on net of salvage basis) and omission (failure to furnish the requisite documents to OP2) and therefore, cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. The Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented legislation for protection of consumers and the compensation granted under this benevolent legislation should neither be a pittance nor a windfall but should be fair and appropriate. The OP2 had acted promptly and within six months of the date of accident (inclusive of surveyor report and approval of claim) had duly intimated to the complainant of the settlement of his claim   for Rs. 3,99,500/- only subject to furnishing of the requisite documents which the complainant failed to submit till date and therefore, cannot be allowed to take advantage of inaction on his part and misuse the process of law to make unlawful and unjustified gains.
9. We, therefore, do not find OP2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct the complainant to furnish the requisite documents to OP2 immediately on receipt of this order and thereafter the OP2 is directed to expedite the clearance of the compensation amount of Rs. 3,99,500/- (Rupees Three Lac Ninety Nine Thousand and Fie Hundred) within 30 days of receipt of this order in favour of the complainant. No order as to costs.  
10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.  File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on   08.11.2017)        

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member