Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 489.
Instituted on : 23.08.2017.
Decided on : 16.01.2019.
Mohit Goyal aged 34 years son of Shri Radhey Shyam Goyal, resident of Flat no.409, Liberty Homes, Shiv Nagar colony Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- SBI General Insurance Company Limited, having one of its Registered & Corporate office Natraj, 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai.
- Branch office at 1st Floor, SCO 149, Red Square Market, CUE-1, near to State Bank of India, Hisar through its authorized signatory.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of Mahindra & Mahindra XUV 500, Model 2014 bearing no.HR-16N-6300 which was financed by the Bank of Baroda, Bhiwani and is hypothecated with the said bank. That aforesaid vehicle was insured with the respondent company for a total IDV Rs.920000/- for the period 15.05.2016 to 14.05.2017. That Sh. Subhash s/o Shri Umed Singh has been employed as driver to ply the aforesaid vehicle and he was holding the valid driving licence no.DL/19828 dated 16.02.2011 valid upto 14.01.2029. That aforesaid Subhash had parked the aforesaid vehicle in front of his house on 04.03.2017 at night and it suddenly caught fire. That intimation of the accident and burning of the insured vehicle was duly given to the insurance company immediately and all the documents were supplied to the OP. That surveyor was appointed by the OP and total estimate of repairs Rs.1629806.24p was prepared by the authorized dealer. That complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party and the claim was registered vide claim no.357409. That opposite party vide its letter dated 24.05.2017 has alleged that the vehicle in question has already been sold by the complainant to Subhash Dangi before the accident. That complainant told the respondent that the complainant has never sold the vehicle to Subhash but despite his repeated requests, claim has not been settled by the opposite parties. That the act of opposite parties of repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.920000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written reply has submitted that as per the investigation report of M/s Bulls Eye detective, it came to the knowledge that vehcile in question was sold to the Subhash. That the complainant was served with several letters to clarify the queries but the complainant did not cooperate with the answering opposite party That answering opposite party is ready to settle the claim, subject to satisfactorily clarification sought vide letters dated 24.05.2017, 22.01.2018 and 14.03.2018. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case the main objection of the respondent company is that vehicle has been sold to Subhash s/o Sh. Umed Singh r/o Madina on the date of loss. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place while the vehicle in question was in the possession of Subhash s/o Umed. In support of his contention, the insurance company placed on record a photocopy of statement which was allegedly received in the office of insurance company on dated 18.09.2017. As per this statement, Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Umed Singh has purchased the vehicle in question from the complainant and he had already paid an amount of Rs.7 lacs and the remaining 3 lacs was to be paid to the complainant by the said Subhash . We have also perused documents placed on record by the complainant as well as investigation report placed on record by the OP as Ex.R2. The same is merely a photocopy and is not supported by any affidavit of investigating agency. Hence the same is not authenticated. Moreover the private and confidential report dated 19.04.2017 has been submitted in the office of insurance company by Sh.Vokesh Arya Mechanical Engineer, Surveyor and loss Assessor vide reference no.VKA/SBI/MC/2016/17 on dated 24.04.2017. The investigator has mentioned in his report in the column cause and nature of the accident, “As stated in enclosed claim form & FIR that the insured vehicle was parked in outside the insured relative premises due to short circuit insured vehicle caught fire and thus the vehicle completely burnt & thus the vehicle got damaged”. Moreover, in the Remarks and Observations, it is mentioned that: “He visited the spot to check the vehicle minutely and arranged necessary photographs. He also came to the conclusion that damaged beheld were fresh in nature correlating with the cause of accident”. That the alleged report which was received in the office on dated 18.09.2017 has been placed on record, which is merely a photocopy and the main source of this report has not been disclosed by the respondent that from where they have received the same. Hence the same cannot be believed. Moreover, the document Ex.R3 is not the part of surveyor report Ex.R2 as it has not disclosed that who has submitted this single page statement in the office of opposite party. On the other hand, Subhash s/o Umed Singh has filed an affidavit to the effect that he was engaged as a driver to ply the alleged vehicle bearing No.HR-16N-6300 by its registered owner Sh. Mohit Goyal complainant. Hence from the documents placed on file it is not proved that the vehicle was sold to one Subhash by the complainant before the accident. As such OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his vehicle under the insurance policy. In the present case the complaiannt has not impleaded the financer of the vehicle as necessary party i.e. Bank of Baroda, Bhiwani. As such, the amount awarded should be given to the Bank of Baroda , Bhiwani to adjust the outstanding dues of the financer.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant has demanded IDV of his vehicle Rs.920000/- but as per the affidavit filed by the OPs, the liability of answering Ops was to pay Rs.875585/- after deducting Rs.2000/- as exccess clause and Rs.42415/- as salvage assessed by an Independent surveyor after transfer of RC in the name of the company. However this liability is assessed on repair basis. But the surveyor has not submitted the report after assessing the damage on net of salvage basis. Now this Fourm has assessed the amount of salvage as Rs.70000/- and there is no need to transfer the RC in the name of company. As such, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of IDV Rs.920000/- less salvage Rs.70000/- i.e. to pay Rs.850000/-(Rupees eight lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.08.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the financer within one month from the date of decision. However after adjustment of outstanding dues of the financer, the remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
