Haryana

Kurukshetra

25/2017

Supreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Verma

16 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.25 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.02.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.11.2018.

Supreet Singh S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh, R/o Village Babain, P.O. Babain, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 through its authorized signatory.
2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Ist Floor, SCO No.13P, Sector-17, near LIC Building, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Naresh Verma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Harpal Singh, Adv. for the Op No.2. 

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Supreet Singh against Shri Ram General Insurance Company and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of a vehicle No.HR65-6515 marka Ashok Leyland 1212 (Medium Goods Vehicle) and the said vehicle was insured with the Op No.1 vide policy No.10003/31/16/429568 for the period valid w.e.f. 28.11.2015 to 27.11.2016.  It is alleged that the said vehicle was financed by the Op No.2 and the Op No.2 has tie-up with the Op No.1 about the insurance of the vehicle in question.  It is alleged that on 12.06.2016, the said vehicle met with an accident at Ludhiana and in the said accident, the vehicle of complainant was damaged and in this regard, a DDR No.26 dt. 18.06.2016 was registered.  Information regarding accident was given to the Ops.  It is further alleged that the complainant has got repaired his vehicle at Pipli and an amount of Rs.2,01,673/- was spent by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op No.1 repudiated the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,673/- as claim amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the driving licence of driver was not valid and effective.  After intimation regarding loss, one spot surveyor namely Sh. J.S.Khurana & Associates was appointed by the answering Op and one Mr. Rajesh Chhabra, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed.  It is submitted that as per survey report, the total amount regarding this accident/loss was Rs.29,500/- but at the material time of accident, there were 8 persons travelling in the insured vehicle including the driver, whereas the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle as per the registration certificate is only 3 (2+1).  There is serious violation of policy conditions pertaining to limitations as to use.  So, due to serious breach of the policy conditions as to limitations as to use, the claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dt. 14.07.2016, which was sent to the complainant on 16.07.2016.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the answering Op is the financier of the said vehicle.  There is an agreement between the parties that if any dispute is arisen, the matter will be sent to the Arbitration, as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             In support of his case, the counsel of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to E.C18 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.             On the other hand, the counsel of Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.  The counsel of Op No.1 tendered into evidence documents Ex.R7 & Ex.R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.

7.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 12.06.2016, the insured vehicle met with an accident at Ludhiana and in the said accident, the vehicle of complainant was damaged and DDR bearing No.26 dated 18.06.2016 (Annexure C-1) was registered.  The vehicle was got repaired at Pipli, Distt. Kurukshetra and an amount of Rs.2,01,673/- was spent on the repair of said vehicle.  All the documents alongwith application of claim was submitted to the Ops but no claim was given by the Ops till date.  It is also argued by the counsel of complainant that the repudiation letter was not given to him.  So, this is a gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2005(3) CCC page 196 titled as Divisional Manager, UII Vs. Samir Chandra Chaudhary (SC). 

9.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for Op No.1 contended that the policy of vehicle was purchased from Jaipur and the accident has taken place in Punjab, so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  The second point raised by the counsel of Op No.1 that according to RC (Annexure C-7), the seating capacity of vehicle is only three persons, whereas at the time of accident, eight persons were travelling in the vehicle.  In this regard, the statement of complainant, Ex.R3 was recorded, wherein the complainant admitted that at the time of accident, eight persons were travelling in the vehicle.  The next point raised by the counsel of Op No.1 that according to surveyor report (Ex.R1), the only damages to the vehicle was occurred to the tune of Rs.29,500/-.  The counsel of Op No.1 placed reliance upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC bearing Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, date of decision: 20.10.2009 (SC); M/s. Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. NIA, bearing Civil Appeal No.1130 of 2007, date of decision: 22.08.2016 (SC); M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. UII, bearing Civil Appeal No.1375 of 2003, date of decision: 08.10.2018 (SC) and UII Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, bearing Civil Appeal No.6277 of 2004, date of decision: 24.09.2004 (SC). 

                In reply of the arguments of counsel of Op No.1, counsel of complainant contended that the insured vehicle was purchased by the complainant at Kurukshetra.  The policy was also obtained from Kurukshetra and Op No.1 has also branch office at Kurukshetra, so, this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  The counsel of complainant further contended that the signatures of complainant were obtained by the investigator of Op No.1 on blank papers i.e. Ex.R3.  The said document Ex.R3 is not prepared by the complainant and only the signatures are obtained by the Op No.1 on that document.  Regarding third point, the argument of counsel for complainant is that the original bills are attached with the file.  The complainant has spent Rs.2,01,673/- on the repair of vehicle, so, his claim may please be passed.

10.            Learned counsel for the Op No.2 contended that the Op No.2 is the financier of vehicle in question and the Op No.2 has no concern regarding the repair etc.  He further contended that the Op No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

11.            From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of submissions of both the parties, we find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of counsel of complainant.  There is no merit in the submissions of counsel for Ops.  So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1 has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant.  The contention of Op No.2 that the  vehicle was financed by the Op No.2 and there is no liability of Op No.2 has no force because the Op No.2 got insured the vehicle in question from the Op No.1.  Hence, there is gross deficiency in service on the part of both the Ops.  The authorities submitted by the counsel of Op No.1 are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  In the present case, the complainant has demanded the claim of Rs.2,01,673/-, whereas the complainant has placed the bills Annexure C-11 to Annexure C-15 total amounting to Rs.1,92,618.75 paise, so, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,92,618.75 paise.

12.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.1,92,618.75 paise to the complainant and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.