Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 478
Instituted on : 20.10.2020
Decided on : 25.10.2023.
Vikash son of Dharamvir, resident of Village Farmana Khas, Tehsil Meham District Rohtak. ...........Complainant.
Vs.
- Renault Motors, Delhi Road, through its Prop.
- The Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Unit No. 801A, 8th Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, D-9, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110018, through its Authorized person/Manager.
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.
Shri Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle Duster Car bearing registration no.HR-12V-9996 insured with the opposite party no. 2 for the period from 31.10.2019 to 30.10.2020 in the showroom of opposite party no. 1 at Rohtak vide policy No.VPC1234866000100 and IDV value of the said vehicle is Rs.5,50,000/-. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 15.06.2020 near outer bye pass, Rohtak due to sudden brake applied by the truck which was running at high speed. The complainant had intimated to the opposite party no. 2 well in time. The claim form was also duly submitted complete in all aspects as desired by the authorized person of opposite party no.2, who met the complainant in workshop/showroom of the opposite party no. 1 whereby damaged vehicle was taken for survey report and repair. Complainant also sent the photographs of vehicle which were clicked on the spot to the surveyor appointed by the opposite party no. 2. The surveyor also inspected the damaged vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party no. 1. Thereafter the complainant visited at the showroom/workshop of the opposite party no. 1 who gave estimate of the repair to the complainant. The complainant handed over the same to the surveyor of the opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 2 vide letter dated 08.02.2020 informed the complainant that they are unable to entertain the claim due to misrepresentation of facts regarding date, time and place etc. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.5,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 appeared and submitted his reply that they have no concern with the settlement of claim because the same is to be settled by insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured. Opposite party no. 2 filed its reply submitting therein that the damages of vehicle are not co-related with the cause of the accident. It is also submitted that FIR is not registered of the alleged accident. The alleged Truck registration number has not been disclosed and crane receipt has not been provided inspite of many requests. Investigator found that as per service records, insured vehicle was lastly taken there in 18.09.2019 and black smoke issue has been mentioned in the details and it has also been mentioned that engine sound needs to be diagnosed but complainant refused to do anything. The immediate intimation has not been submitted to the insurance company, so the claim is not tenable. Complainant has alleged that he has removed the vehicle from the spot, so they could not conduct the spot survey. It is further submitted that complainant has concealed the material facts. So there is misrepresentation of facts in order to grab the claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex. CW2/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.02.2022. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 stated that reply filed by them be also read as their evidence and closed the same on dated 25.04.2022. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/6 and closed his evidence on 21.12.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments submitted by ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the main contention of the opposite party is that the damages to the vehicle are not related with the cause of accident as narrated in claim form. As per investigation report of Scrutiny professionals, “damages were not matching with the factum submitted by the complainant/insured. Investigation report recommended the case for forensic reconstruction technical report. So M/s ICS Assure Services Pvt. Ltd. conducted the Motor Accident reconstruction report and concluded that damages of insured vehicle are not co- relating to be caused by hitting behind a Truck and insured is misrepresenting the facts about the accident”. But the scrutiny report Ex.R2/4, Motor accident reconstruction report Ex.R2/5 and survey report Ex.R2/6 are not supported with affidavit of the concerned persons who investigated the matter or who prepared the report of reconstructions. On the other hand, the perusal of photographs placed on record by the complainant and photocopy of photographs placed on record by the respondent Ex.R2/5 itself shows that there is a huge damages in the engine of the vehicle. As per survey report Ex.R2/6 the repair cost of the vehicle is more than the IDV, which shows that there is total damage in the vehicle. The perusal of photographs shows that only engine has been damaged and remaining part of the vehicle is in OK condition. Hence in our view opposite party is liable to pay the claim(IDV) after deducting 20% amount on account of salvage. Hence the complainant is entitled for the loss of Rs.440000/-(Rs.550000/- less Rs.110000/- as salvage).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.440000/-(Rupees four lac forty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.10.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to send a letter to the Registration Authority for cancellation of R.C. bearing no.HR-12V-9996 within 15 days and shall not use the alleged vehicle in any manner and also to sale the alleged vehicle in scrap.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.10.2023
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.......................................
Vijender Singh, Member
