Haryana

Karnal

36/2014

Talvinder Singh S/o Narender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited., Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Virender Pal Singh

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 36 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt:11.02.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 08.10.2015

 

Talvinder Singh son of Shri Narender Singh resident of village Kurali tehsil and district Karnal.                                                   

                                                                         ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1,Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, SCO 82 FF, Sector – 40 C, Chandigarh  through its Regional Manager.

2.Kanav Motors Pvt.Ltd. GT Road, Karnal through its Incharge Shri Gagan Kakkar.

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.Virender Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Vinod Dogra Advocate for OP no.2.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed  by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986, on the allegations that complainant purchased Ford Figo car  bearing registration No. HR-05AG-6103 from Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.2 and got insured the same from OP no.1 through OP No.2 by paying premium of Rs.12,888/-, vide cover note  No. 3856506  dated 3.12.2012.  The said car met with an accident on 1.12.2013 near village Kachwa and  First Information Report no.864 dated 2.12.2013 was registered regarding the said accident in Police Station, Sadar, Karnal.   The factum of accident was also intimated to the OP, who deputed Sh.Jagdeep Singh Bhayana, as Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The damaged  car was inspected by the surveyor at Kanav Motors, GT Road, Karnal, where the car was brought for repairs and the surveyor took the necessary photographs and prepared the estimate for repair of the car as Rs.4,20,000/- as the vehicle has damaged. Claim was registered with the OP, who assured him that claim would be settled within a few  weeks after completion of the formalities, but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other and the claim was not settled. The action of the OP was altogether illegal and arbitrary, which amounted to deficiency in service.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops.  OP No.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is misconceived and abuse of the process of law; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant is not a consumer qua the OP no.1; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which ought to  be  adjudicated by the civil court and that the  complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint as he had executed consent letter dated 13.1.2014 regarding settlement of the claim on total loss basis.  

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that  complainant made belated claim on 16.12.2013 alleging that his vehicle had met with an accident on 1.12.2013.  Surveyor gave detailed report stating that repair liability would exceed 75% of the sum assured  upon dismantling of the vehicle as total cost for repair of the vehicle was assessed Rs.3,58,377/- , therefore, salvage loss basis settlement( total loss basis) was suggested as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OP issued a letter to the complainant for settlement of the claim on salvage loss basis and it was clearly conveyed to him that a quote for Rs.1,50,000/-  was received as price for wreck value of the damaged vehicle as the salvage buyer was ready to buy the vehicle  ( as and where basis). After consent of the complainant OP offered for settlement of the claim as per terms of the policy. Thereafter, complainant voluntarily executed discharge voucher for settlement of the claim and unconditionally accepted  a sum of Rs.2,69,000/- vide

 

 

 

consent letter dated 13.1.2014 as  full and final settlement of the claim. Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                The OP no.2 filed   separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable against OP no.2 as the OP no.1 is to indemnify the claim in respect of the insured vehicle; that  the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that complainant brought the damaged vehicle to the workshop of  OP No. 2 and   on asking of the complainant, the OP no.2 got the vehicle repaired, therefore, OP No.2 is entitled  to get repair charges from the complainant. OP no.2 has provided prompt services to the complainant and there was no deficiency in services on its part. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/H have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of Ops, affidavits of Pawan Kumar Gupta and G. Vinay  Prakash Ex.OP2/A and Ex.O1 respectively and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O5 have been produced.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

7.                The factum of  accident of the car of the complainant and damage to the car in  the said accident has not been disputed by the OPs. It has also been admitted that surveyor was appointed, who submitted report regarding loss.

 

8.                The learned counsel for the OP laid emphasis on the contention that repair liability exceeded 75% of the sum assured, therefore, salvage loss basis settlement was suggested as per terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and the Ops issued a letter to the to the complainant for settlement of the claim on  salvage loss basis and it was clearly conveyed to him that a quote of Rs.1,50,000/- was received as  price for wreck value. The complainant accepted the offer for settlement and he voluntarily executed discharge voucher for settlement of the claim and unconditionally accepted the sum of Rs.2,69,000/- vide consent letter dated 13.1.2014 as full and final settlement of the  claim, the copy of which is Ex.O5. It has further been argued that after acceptance of the claim, the complainant no more remained a consumer and he has no right to claim any further amount, therefore, his complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

 

7.                          The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP cannot be accepted  being devoid of force. The complainant has produced the copy of the consent letter dated 13.1.2014 as  Ex.CW1/H, according to which the IDV of the car was Rs.4,65,405/-,the settlement value was Rs.4,20,000/-, and  policy excess clause was deducted as Rs.1000/- whereas the amount against wreck value and net liability of the company were not filled and the said entries were left blank. OP has also produced the copy of the consent voucher Ex.O5, wherein the wreck value has  been mentioned as Rs.50,000/-  and net liability of the company has been mentioned as Rs.2,69,000/- and other entries remained the same as in Ex.CW1/H. One copy of the said consent voucher dated 13.1.2014 has also been lying on the file, wherein the wreck value has been mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/- and the other entries remained unchanged. These documents make it emphatically clear that signatures of the complainant were obtained on the alleged consent voucher, leaving the amounts against wreck value and net liability of the company blank and lateron these entries were filled as per convenience of the insurance company. Such incomplete consent voucher does not prove in any manner that complainant had accepted the amount of Rs.2,69,000/- as full and final settlement of the claim. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon  the document purporting to  be the consent voucher of the complainant which was incomplete and as such the same does not cut any ice in favour of the OP. Moreover, the alleged settlement/consent amount was not paid to the complainant. Therefore, on this ground also signing of the alleged consent voucher is of no help to the OP  to establish that  the complainant had accepted the  said amount as full and final settlement of  his claim.

 

8.                The report of surveyor   has not been disputed  either by the complainant or by the OP.   There is no ground to ignore the report of surveyor which a valuable document  and should be given due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same. The copy of the report of surveyor is Ex.O3  according to which total loss  including labour charges and cost of parts replacement was assessed as Rs.4,49,552.94,  Rs.81674.95 were deducted as  depreciation,  Rs.1000/- were deducted as less policy clause and Rs.8500/- were  deducted as salvage value.  The net liability of the insurance company on repair basis was assessed as Rs.3,58,377.99, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant as loss suffered by him due to damage of his car in the accident.   Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of OP by not paying the loss suffered by the complainant as assessed by the surveyor.

 

                    

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to make the payment of Rs.3,58,377.99 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from  the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.02.2014 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him together with a sum of Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. The OP no.1 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:08.10.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                              Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Virender Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Vinod Dogra Advocate for OP no.2.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 8.10.2015.

 

Announced
dated:06.10.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                              Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Virender Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Vinod Dogra Advocate for OP no.2.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:08.10.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                              Member.