Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/899/2019

Vikram Rattan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/899/2019
Date of Institution	:	02/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	01/12/2023

 

Vikram Rattan son of Sh. Ravinder Paul Rattan r/o H.No.1315/2, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office : SCO No.147-148, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.
2. Dhiman Motors, through Vishal Dhiman, Plot No.1218, Sector 82, JLPL, Industrial Park, Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant alongwith Dr. Joseph K. Masih, authorised representative of complainant
	:	Sh. Arun Kumar alongwith Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocates for OP-1
	:	Sh. Kamal Kant, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Vikram Rattan, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased one Mercedes car bearing registration No.CH01-BG-3325 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”), as per registration certificate (Annexure C-2), which was insured with OP-1 vide insurance Policy (Annexure C-1) and was valid from 29.11.2017 to 28.11.2018. On the night of 21.11.2018 at around 10:30 p.m., the subject car, being driven by Ramadeep Singh, friend of the complainant, who was possessing valid driving licence (Annexure C-3), met with an accident when he was going from Zirakpur side to Mohali International Airport road and immediately information about the accident was given to the OPs.  At that time, the subject car was taken to the authorised repairer M/s Joshi Auto Zone, Industrial Area, Chandigarh where the repairer had declared the same as total loss.  On this, the subject car was taken to M/s Dhiman Motors, Mohali where the OP had also sent a surveyor to assess the loss who prepared the estimate of loss (Annexure C-4).  The complainant had supplied all the documents demanded by the surveyor.  After sometime, OP appointed investigator and the complainant fully cooperated with the investigator.  However, the surveyor and investigator had raised irrelevant queries which were properly replied by the complainant, but, despite of that the OPs have not paid the genuine claim of the complainant.  When the OPs did not make the payment, complainant was compelled to make payment of the repair invoice (Annexure C-7) and only then he got the subject car from the repairer.  Thereafter the complainant again made several requests to the OPs for release of the claimed amount, but, with no result and ultimately he was compelled to send legal notice dated 25.5.2019 (Annexure C-8) to OP-1.  However, when OP-1 had not cleared the claim of the complainant, he filed a consumer complaint and in the said complaint vide order dated 1.7.2019 (Annexure C-9) the District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh ordered to decide the claim of the complainant within one month. After passing of the order, OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.7.2019 (Annexure C-10) on flimsy grounds by mentioning that the earlier damage suffered by the subject car resembled with the damage claimed in the present consumer complaint.  Though the subject car was damaged in an earlier accident and the earlier insurer ICICI Lombard had settled the claim, but, OP-1 is adamant not to clear the genuine claim of the complainant.  OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written versions. 
3. In its written version, OP-1 took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  It is alleged that during inspection by the investigator appointed by the answering OP, it was found that the complainant had raised claim qua the same damage regarding which he had already settled the claim with earlier insurer and has filed a false claim against the answering OP.  It is also alleged that even the facts as narrated in the claim form and the consumer complaint are contradictory to each other and makes the case of the complainant suspicious and doubtful. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation that a similar claim had already been raised by previous owner Usha Singla.  It is further alleged that the investigator also got the record and photographs from ICICI Lombard with regard to the claim submitted by the previous owner for total loss of the same vehicle and the said vehicle was sold by Usha Singla on salvage basis to one Vishal Dhiman (OP-2) for a sum of ₹22,50,000/- on 20.4.2017, regarding which he executed affidavit qua the said purchase.  Apart from this, the previous owner Usha Singla also got a sum of ₹16,50,000/- from the ICICI Lombard. Though the car was declared total loss by M/s Joshi Auto Zone, but, the complainant had taken the same to M/s Dhiman Motors, Mohali without intimating the answering OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version OP-2 took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  The subject car was repaired by the answering OP when the same was earlier owned by Usha Singla and later on was also repaired by it when the same was brought to it by the complainant.  It is admitted that Vishal Dhiman had executed affidavit in favour of registered owner, but, alleged that the registration certificate of the subject car remained in the name of registered owner.  In fact, subject car was sold to the complainant, Vikram Rattan by the previous owner Usha Singla and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant and the insurance policy was also transferred in his name.  All the allegations made in the consumer complaint against the answering OP are wrong. The subject car was repaired by the answering OP in the month of January 2019.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In replications, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that originally the subject car was owned by Smt. Usha Singla and the same was got insured by her w.e.f. 29.11.2017 to 28.11.2018, as is also evident from the insurance policy (Annexure C-1) and the subject car met with an accident on 21.11.2018 regarding which the erstwhile owner, Smt. Usha Singla had got claim from the previous insurer i.e. ICICI Lombard to the tune of ₹16,50,000/- with the salvage amount and later on the aforesaid owner had sold the subject car to the complainant, who got the subject policy endorsed in his name by approaching OP-1/insurer, as is also evident from the endorsement schedule annexed with Annexure C-1, and also that the complainant had lodged claim with OP-1 with respect to the accident on 21.11.2018, which is now in dispute between the parties, and even after the lodging of the aforesaid claim, complainant had also received claim qua another accident of the subject car in which OP-1, after completing all formalities had paid a sum of ₹23.00 lacs + ₹13.10 lacs as sale proceed out of salvage (total loss car due to flood) and during the pendency of the consumer complaint, the subject car has already been sold to one Amarjeet Singh, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1/insurer is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant qua the alleged loss caused to the subject car in the accident on 21.11.2018 and the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith other reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant and OP-2 (Dhiman Motors), by conniving with each other, have manipulated documents and have lodged a false claim and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP/insurer.
   2. The claim of complainant is resisted by insurer/OP-1 mainly on two grounds – (a) firstly that the subject car was not being driven by Ramadeep Singh, friend of the complainant, as is the case of the complainant, rather the same was being driven by the complainant himself, who was not possessing a driving licence (b) secondly that the subject car had already suffered damage when the same was owned by Smt. Usha Singla, who got the claim from the previous insurer/ICICI Lombard and later on Vishal Dhiman, Proprietor of OP-2 after purchasing aforesaid car, in connivance with the complainant, again lodged claim qua the same damage which the subject car had already suffered. Thus, the onus to prove both the aforesaid grounds on which OP-1 has resisted the instant consumer complaint, lies upon OP-1/insurer. 
   3. In order to prove that the subject car was not being driven by Ramadeep Singh, copy of whose driving licence (Annexure C-3) has also been produced by the complainant on record, learned counsel for OP-1 has drawn our attention to the copy of legal notice dated 25.5.2019 (Annexure C-8), having been proved by the complainant himself on record, which clearly indicates that in para 2 of legal notice, complainant has alleged that, at the time of accident on 21.11.2018, near Zirakpur (Punjab), the registered owner/insured, who is admittedly Vikram Rattan (complainant), was driving the subject car, making it clear that, at the relevant date, time and place, the subject car was not being driven by Ramadeep Singh, as is the case of the complainant and the very foundation of the case of the complainant, as set up in the consumer complaint  stands demolished.
   4. OP-1/insurer has further proved the photographs of the subject car (attached with Ex.OP-1, OP-16 and Ex.OP-19) which further indicate that, in fact, whatever damage was caused to the subject car when the same was owned by the previous owner, Smt.Usha Singla, same is further visible in the photographs which have been produced by the complainant during investigation by the surveyor.  Moreover, the active role played by the complainant in connivance with OP-2/Dhiman Motors for grabbing the claim amount from the insurer further stands proved from the copy of affidavit (Ex.OP-13) having been given by Vishal Dhiman, who is admittedly proprietor of OP-2, which clearly indicates that the aforesaid proprietor had purchased the subject car from Smt. Usha Singla, original owner, on 20.4.2017 which further makes it clear that after 20.4.2017 she was left with no right, title or interest with the subject car. Again the subject car was alleged to have been sold by Smt.Usha Singla in favour of the complainant, in whose name the subject car was got transferred vide certificate of registration (Annexure C-2).  As it has further come on record that the insurance certificate of the subject car was only endorsed in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 29.11.2017 to 28.11.2018, as is also evident from Annexure C-1, it is clear that Vishal Dhiman, being proprietor of OP-2, was the owner of the subject car in pursuance to the affidavit (Ex.OP-13) w.e.f. 20.4.2017 and as it is not the case of the complainant and OP-2 that the subject car was sold by OP-2 to the complainant, the aforesaid act of the complainant and OP-2 shows their connivance with each other in order to first get the subject car registered in the name of the complainant from the ownership of Smt. Usha Singla and thereafter to lodge claim by concocting a story that the subject car again met with an accident. 
   5. Not only this, it is the case of the complainant and defence of OP-2 that after the accident, subject car was first taken to Joshi Automobiles for its repair and when a huge amount was asked by Joshi Automobiles for repair of the subject car, same was taken to OP-2 for repair who had charged lesser amount than the amount claimed by Joshi Automobiles.  Admittedly, no information was given by the complainant or OP-2 to the insurer/OP-1 before taking the subject car to Joshi Automobiles or subsequently shifting the same to OP-2.  OP-2 has issued a tax invoice (Annexure C-7) of ₹16,61,212/-showing that it has charged aforesaid amount from the complainant for the repair of the subject car, knowing fully well that Vishal Dhiman, proprietor of OP-2 was the owner of the subject car in pursuance to the affidavit (Ex.OP-13) and it appears that the aforesaid documents including the estimate (Annexure C-4), tax invoice (Annexure C-7) and the receipts have been prepared by the complainant and OP-2 just to extract the claim from insurer/OP-1.
   6. As it has further come on record that during the pendency of the consumer complaint, complainant is no more the owner of the subject car, which has already been purchased by Amarjeet Singh and the same has also been transferred in his name, the complainant ceased to be a consumer and has no cause of action against the insurer/OP-1 and even on that ground the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Here we are strengthened by the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 934, in which it was held as under :-

"6. We have held in R.P. No. 2562 of 2012 Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Swami) & Anr. decided on 25.09.2013 that once vehicle is sold during pendency of the complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purposes of Consumer Protection Act. In that judgment, we have placed reliance on I (2008) CPJ 249 (NC) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Major Amrit Lal Saini and judgement dated 23.4.2013 passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 466 of 2008 Mr. Rajiv Gulati Vs. Authorised Signatory M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. In this case, as vehicle has been sold by complainant during pendency of appeal which was filed in the year 2007 and decided in the year 2012, complainant ceases to be a consumer under C.P. Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Had Respondent No. 1 brought this fact to the notice of State Commission learned State Commission would not have directed petitioner to replace the steering wheel and gear box assembly and other connected parts because Respondent no. 1 was not possessing vehicle at the time of passing the judgement.”

7. Further in Berkeley Nissan Vs. Dr. Rameet Singh, Appeal No.141 of 2016 decided on 19.7.2016 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, it was held as under :-

"7.    In view of sale of car, when complaint was pending, the complainant ceased to be a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.  On recording above finding, it is not necessary to go into the issue whether the District Forum at Chandigarh had jurisdiction to try the complaint or not.”

4. In view of the foregoing discussion and the ratio of law laid down above, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/12/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member