Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 270
Instituted on : 03.06.2019
Decided on : 16.06.2023.
Yudhvir age 26 years, s/o Sh. Bijender R/o Village-Madina Gindhran, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Limited Unit No. 644-645/19, Civil Road, Opposite Service Club, Rohtak through its General Manager.
- Sharan Auto Company, Gohana Road, Meham, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak through its Dealer.
- Escort Limited 15/5 Mathura Road, Faridabad-121003 through its General 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: Sh. Amit Dhaka, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for Opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Madan Lal, Advocate for opposite party no. 3.
Sh.Devender Singh Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased an Escort Tractor, Chasis no. T053299645BE, Engine No.3334686 from the opposite party no. 2, who is authorized dealer of opposite party no. 3 and the same was insured with the opposite party no. 1 vide policy no. VOC0518466000100 valid from 18.11.2018 to midnight of 17.11.2019. On 07.01.2019, complainant was coming from the fields to his house and in the way a Neel Gai came infront of his tractor. In order to save the alleged cow, the complainant’s tractor was turned in roadside ditches and was badly damaged and its engine also damaged completely. The complainant informed the officials of opposite party no. 1 and the surveyor got the survey of the vehicle and declared the vehicle as total damage. Complainant filed the claim with the opposite party no. 1 and submitted all the relevant documents as asked by their officials. He approached the opposite party no. 1 and requested them to disburse the claim amount in his favour but after repeated requests they did not disburse the amount of claim to the complainant. 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 award the compensation in the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith 18% per annum from the accident till actual realization and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the claim of the complaint was neither admitted nor denied but only closed for non-submission of documents. The opposite party can only admit the claim after the repair of the vehicle and due re-inspection and submission of original invoice/receipt. The complainant has not completed the claim formalities. On receipt of the claim intimation they had duly appointed licensed surveyor to assess the loss and damage to the insured vehicle and he assessed the net loss at Rs.34,613/- after deducting depreciation and IMT-23 parts deduction/depreciation, salvage and policy excess. The complainant was requested to arrange for dismantling the engine in the presence of surveyor to examine the internal damage. It is further submitted that in order to proceed with the claim further, the complainant was requested to produce the vehicle under repair and further for re-inspection with salvage, provide repair invoice, AML proof and one cheque leaf with insured name and account number printed on it. The same was requested vide letter dated 06.06.2019 and final reminder letter dated 13.06.2019. Despite reminders the complainant has not complied with the requirements and hence the claim was closed as no-claim. The opposite party is not in a position to determine their liability without re-inspecting the vehicle after repairs and verifying the payment invoice/receipts. Further the complainant has to provide signature proof, passport sized photos and also bank account details for transfer of claim amount. The complainant is not entitled to receive any claim amount without completing the formalities as requested for by the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied by the answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 2 in its reply has admitted that the tractor of the complainant met with an accident on 07.01.2019 which came to the knowledge of answering opposite party when the complainant brought the accidental tractor to the agency of the answering opposite party on 08.01.2019. The surveyor visited and surveyed the accidental vehicle at the agency of answering opposite party in the presence of opposite parties. The complainant had submitted the relevant documents to the surveyor as well as the estimate made by the mechanic present there in front of the surveyor. The insurance company has not disbursed the claim amount or has repaired the accidental vehicle as the accidental vehicle is still lying at the agency of answering opposite party. The complainant has told the answering opposite party that the insurance company has raised an issue regarding the coverage of engine of alleged accidental vehicle and has denied to repair the accidental vehicle. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied by the answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. Opposite party no. 3 in its reply has submitted that there exists no privity of contract between answering opposite party and the complainant. The answering opposite party cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on dated 04.03.2020. Complainant in his additional evidence tender affidavit Ex. CW-1/B, documents Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-11 and closed his additional evidence on 27.06.2022. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1/1 to Ex. R1/9 and closed his evidence on dated 01.07.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-2/A, document Ex. R-2/1 and closed his evidence on dated 07.02.2022. Ld. Counsel for OP No. 3 in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-3/A, document Ex. R3/1 to Ex. R3/2 and closed his evidence on 01.07.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. As per para no.4 of the reply of opposite party No.1 surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss of only Rs.34613/- which is very minor claim. No technical report, no photographs have been placed on record by the insurance company to prove that there were minor damages in the vehicle. As per Ex.R1/5 to Ex.R1/7 dated 01.01.2019, 19.03.2019 & 07.1.2019 respectively opposite party requested the complainant to arrange for dismantling of the engine in the presence of surveyor for inspecting the internal damages. The vehicle was dismantled in the presence of surveyor but he has not mentioned anywhere in his report that the engine of the vehicle has been damaged in the accident. Surveyor has not mentioned internal damages of the vehicle in question. If we consider the internal damage, the repair cost is higher than the value of vehicle. As per letter Ex.R1/8, opposite party sought some documents from the complainant for the purpose of proceeding the claim. But no permission to repair the vehicle was given by the surveyor neither to the insurance company nor to the complainant. Hence wrong assessment of Rs.34000/- has been made by the surveyor. The surveyor has only assessed the claim of Rs.34000/- whereas the damages were on higher side. In reply to para no.3 of the complaint, opposite party No.2 has submitted that the surveyor visited and surveyed the accidental vehicle at the agency of respondent No.2 in the presence of answering respondents. In reply to para no.5 of the complaint, it is submitted by the opposite party No.2 that: “the insurance company has not disbursed the claim amount or has repaired the accidental vehicle as the accidental vehicle is still lying at the agency of respondent no.2. It is also pertinent to mention here that the claimant has told the answering respondent that the insurance company has raised an issue regarding the coverage of engine of alleged accidental vehicle and has denied to repair the accidental vehicle”. As per Ex.RW2/A, in para no.3, it is submitted that “the claimant had submitted all the relevant documents as well as the estimate made by the mechanic present at Saharan Auto Co. in front of the surveyor. The tractor is dismantled in presence of surveyor at Saharan auto Co. in his presence”. Hence from the reply and affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 it is clear that all the relevant documents were submitted by the complainant to the surveyor. Hence a wrong plea has been taken by the opposite party No.1 that documents were not submitted by the complainant despite repeated reminders. As per certificate Ex.C10 issued by Sh. Azad Singh, Mechanic of Baba Haridas Automobiles, the vehicle was inspected by him and the estimated expenses to repair the vehicle were Rs.360000/-. From the alleged document it is proved that the loss assessed by the surveyor was very less. Hence in our view opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the amount of loss assessed by the mechanic as per his report Ex.C10. It is also observed that as per document Ex.R2/1, it is admitted that opposite party no.2 was charging Rs.2500/- per month as parking charges from the complainant since 08.01.2019.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.360000/-(Rupees three lac sixty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.06.2019 till its realization and also to pay an amount of 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. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.135000/-(Rupees one lac thirty five thousand only) on account of parking charges to the complainant, which have been paid by the complainant to opposite party No.2 w.e.f. 08.01.2019 to 16.06.2023.
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:
16.06.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
