BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 48 of 2012
Date of Institution : 6.3.2012
Date of Decision : 19.10.2016
Nand Lal @ Nand Pal son of Amar Lal, resident of Ward No.12, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered office 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai 400001, through Branch Manager, Panipat Branch, Panipat.
2. Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. Branch office Sirsa through its Manager/ authorized signatory.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Harish Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is the registered owner of vehicle Tavera B2 bearing registration No.HR-38-L-4611 which was purchased by him under Hire Purchase Agreement with opposite party no.2. On 22.4.2009, the complainant got insured his said vehicle from opposite party no.1 and paid a sum of Rs.12,187/- being premium against insured value of Rs.3,60,000/- of the vehicle covering the risk of all types for the period 22.4.2009 to 21.4.2010. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 31st July, 2009 and an FIR was registered regarding the accident in the concerned Police Station. The complainant also intimated the op no.1 about the accident and also filed a claim of Rs.3,60,000/- upon which the op no.1 appointed a Surveyour who got inspected the vehicle in question and submitted his report favourable to the complainant because the claim was just and proper. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the necessary documents to op no.1 and also removed some technical objections raised by op no.1. The complainant was under bonafide belief that his claim would be settled by op no.1 very soon, but op no.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant was paying installments of loan to op no.2 out of his petty income drawn from the said vehicle, but due to total damage to the vehicle in the accident and on account of non settling of genuine claim by op no.1, he could not deposit the remaining installments and op no.2 is pressing hard to make payment of the balance loan amount. It is further averred that when op no.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, he got served a legal notice upon op no.1 but even then op no.1 did not respond. The cause of action finally arose to the complainant about a month back when the ops did not pay any heed to the oral requests of the complainant to admit his claim. The complainant has suffered serious losses due to the act of op no.1 and deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- on account of damage to the insured vehicle, Rs.1,00,000/- as loss of income, Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and also the interest.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that upon receipt of intimation about the accident of the insured vehicle, immediately a duly licensed Surveyor of IRDA Sh. A.K. Sehgal of Hisar was deputed by the answering op no.1 for physical inspection of the damages and assessment of loss. The complainant did not provide the required documents necessary for processing the claim for which the surveyor sent him a letter dated 2.8.2009 and then on 17.11.2009 and finding no response from the complainant, he issued independent report assessing the loss amounting to Rs.99,378.75/- on repair basis. The demand of the complainant asking for total loss does not fall within the purview of contract of insurance because the total loss of vehicle under the policy can only be considered if the repair cost exceeds 75% of the Insured Declared Value. The answering op conveyed all these facts to the complainant vide letter dated 29.3.2010 and also requested for submission of required documents such as claim form duly filled in, registration certificate in original for verification, driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, repair bills, satisfaction voucher and also asked to produce vehicle for repairs and re-inspection, but the complainant did not provide the required documents and not produced the vehicle rather have filed the present complaint suppressing and concealing all the true and material facts. Hence there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of answering op no.1. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate reply in which it has been submitted that the relationship between the op and complainant is that of creditor and borrower and not of consumer. The complainant has wrongly impleaded op no.2 finance company as party because loan against the vehicle has already been closed on 28.2.2011 and this fact is concealed by the complainant and due to mis-joinder op no.2 has to suffer financial loss. The complainant has not demanded any specific claim or damage from op no.2. This is an insurance claim dispute and has to be resolved by the insurance company. The accident is dated 31.7.2009 and as such the complaint is time barred.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C1, copy of driving licence of Darshan Singh Ex.C2, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C3, letter dated 24.3.2010 Ex.C4, copy of DDR dated 31.7.2009 Ex.C5, legal notice dated 22.7.2011 Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7 and copy of surveyor report Ex.C8. On the other hand, the op no.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager Legal Claims Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 2.8.2009 Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 17.11.2009 Ex.R3, copy of letter dated 29.3.2010 Ex.R4, copy of policy Ex.R5, copy of survey report Ex.R6. OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Legal Officer Ex.R7 and copy of statement of loan account Ex.R8.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. In our considered opinion the opposite party no.2 has been wrongly impleaded in this case as op no.2 has averred that loan against the vehicle has already been closed on 28.2.2011 and in this regard has placed on file copy of statement of account Ex.R8 from which it is evident that complainant has deposited the loan installments and has cleared the loan amount and status of the loan has been shown as closed. Moreover, the complainant has not alleged any kind of deficiency in service on the part of op no.2 in his entire complaint. So, the complaint qua opposite party no.2 is liable to be dismissed.
7. Now with regard to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 i.e. Insurance company as alleged by complainant is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant argued that opposite party no.1 has not considered the claim of the complainant as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulation according to which the insurer/ surveyor shall within 7 days of the claim inform the insured/claimant about essential documents and other requirements in support of claim. The insurance company or its Surveyor should have taken report from the Govt. authorities regarding registration certificate and driving licence if it was necessary as these documents are in public domain. Learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as New India Assurance Co. ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar, CA No.3253 of 2002 decided on 9.4.2009 & Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. CA No.4720 of 2008 decided on 30.7.2008, decision of Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh State Commission, Lucknow in cases titled as Virendra Singh Rathore Vs. Regional Manager, UIIC, 2000 (3) CPJ 431 & United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Gulzar Cold Storage and Ice Factory, 1999 (3) CPJ 203 , decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd. 2010 (1) CPJ 22
8. There is no dispute that vehicle in question of the complainant was insured with the opposite party no.1 from 22.4.2009 to 21.4.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 31.7.2009 which fact is corroborated from the copy of DDR dated 31.7.2009 Ex.C5. The complainant claims to have submitted all the relevant documents alongwith claim to op no.1 but the opposite party no.1 has placed on file letter dated 2.8.2009 Ex.R2 which was written by the Surveyor to the complainant whereby he required certain documents i.e. original driving licence, filled in and signed claim form, original registration certificate, estimates and copy of DDR. The said letter was written by Surveyor just within three days after the accident as per regulations of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. Then he wrote another letter dated 17.11.2009 to the complainant to submit original registration certificate, original driving licence of Darshan Singh and filled in and signed claim form, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.R3. So, the opposite party no.1 could not settle the claim of the complainant for want of certain documents to be supplied by the complainant. The opposite party no.1 also demanded documents from the complainant vide letter dated 29.3.2010, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.R4. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for complainant are not applicable at this stage because op no.1 has not either repudiated the claim of complainant or settled the same.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view demand of above said documents i.e. driving licence, claim form, registration certificate and copy of DDR from the complainant by the opposite party no.1 through above said letters for settling the claim of the complainant is justified. The complainant might have been in possession of original registration certificate of his vehicle and can provide the same for verification, copy of driving licence of Darshan, copy of DDR and therefore, he is directed to submit the said documents alongwith claim form to the opposite party no.1 within a period of 15 days. If he has already submitted the documents required in the letters of op no.1, he should satisfy the op no.1 or send duplicate copies of documents. If complainant does not have original documents, he has to submit duplicate or photocopies of documents like driving licence and registration certificate to op no.1 and thereafter, the opposite party no.1 will settle the claim of the complainant as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations within further period of one month.The present complaint qua opposite party no.1 stands disposed of
accordingly. However, complaint qua opposite party no.2 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:19.10.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
