Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 577.
Instituted on : 04.10.2017.
Decided on : 04.09.2019.
Sh.Vijaydeep Singh Panghal age 50 years, s/o Sh. Mahinder Singh Panghal, resident of H.No.2203, Sector-3, Part, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Branch Office S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd., Second Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
- Manager, Corporate office and Registered Office, SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla-Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai-400069.
- Manager Branch Office, ICICI Bank, Main Branch, Ashoka Plaza, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Manager Registered Office, ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390007(Gujarat).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary,Advocate for opposite party No.3 &4
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s vehicle Chevrolet Beat 1.0 PS DSL, registration No.HR12X3124 was insured from opposite party under 0% depreciation scheme for the period from 29.04.2016 to 28.04.2017. That the above said vehicle met with an accident on 06.01.2017 and the complainant gave information to the opposite parties and raised the claim regarding the same well in time and the respondents generated the claim no.340136 for further proceedings. That respondents appointed a surveyor and complainant submitted all the documents to the surveyor. That the surveyor took photographs of the said vehicle and told that the said vehicle is total loss and told him to park the said vehicle in personal capacity, so the complainant parked the said vehicle in private yard. That complainant made several requests through phone calls & emails to the respondents to settle the claim but any heed was not paid to his genuine requests. A legal notice was also served upon the respondents on 20.07.2017 but no response has been received till date. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.4,60,000/- IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f.06.01.2017 till actual realization and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.100000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 filed their written reply submitting therein that the contents regarding the vehicle in question being met with an accident on 06.01.2017, is correct as per the intimation provided by the complainant. That the Independent surveyor asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired, but till date as per the knowledge of answering respondent, the vehicle in question has not been got repaired. That the surveyor, served letter dated 02.08.2017 upon the complainant, requesting the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and intimate the surveyor/writer of the letter. That without admitting the liability, it is submitted that an Independent Duly Licensed IRDA surveyor submitted his detailed report showing the liability of answering respondent to an amount of Rs.235000/- but the same has not been paid as complainant failed to get the vehicle repaired till date. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.3 & 4 in their reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable qua the answering respondents as the Loan Account No.LAROH00027819225 in the name of complainant in respect of Beat Car bearing No.HR12X-3124 has been closed in the month of August 2018 and thus, the answering respondents have nothing to do with the aforesaid vehicle, its insurance or any of its claim. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C34 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 26.03.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on dated 29.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the vehicle in question has not been got repaired by the complainant despite serving the letter dated 02.08.2017 by the surveyor upon the complainant. It is also on record that the surveyor as per his report Ex.R4 has assessed the loss of Rs.235000/- but the same has not been paid by the opposite parties on the ground that complainant failed to get the vehicle repaired till date.
6. In this regard it is observed that after the accident, complainant was in regular touch with the opposite parties and he made so many emails Ex.C6 to Ex.C11 and legal notice Ex.C12 to the opposite parties to settle the claim at the earliest as it was causing undue parking charges upon the complainant. To prove the same, complainant has also placed on record copy of documents Ex.C17 to Ex.C22 and a written copy of conversation Ex.C23 to Ex.C33 and an audio CD Ex.C27. From the documents placed on record it is well proved that the complainant was in regular touch with the opposite parties but the opposite parties neither settle the claim nor send any letter to the repairer for giving instructions of repair of vehicle. Due to which, the complainant had to pay parking charges and also suffered harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The surveyor of the opposite parties has sent only one letter Ex.C34 to the complainant for giving information about the repair of vehicle, that too after 7 months of the accident. Complainant has also submitted the estimate of repair given by the Badhwar Automotives Pvt. Ltd. i.e. authorized dealer of the company, as per which the value of repair is Rs.566102.07/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.460000/-. Hence the cost of repair exceeds the value of vehicle. The case being total loss, the vehicle in question could not be repaired by the complainant and complainant requested the opposite parties to consider the claim as total loss and to pay the claim amount at the earliest. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite parties did not respond and not settled the claim of the complainant till date. Hence the act of opposite party No.1 & 2 of not disbursing the genuine claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance upon the law 2013(3) CLT 541 titled as M/s Poongodhai Textiles(P) Ltd. Vs. UIIC of Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Commission, Chennai and order dated 29.04.2013 of Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra Mumbai in case titled as M/s Jyoti Impex Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence in view of the aforesaid law, the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to the claim amount on total loss basis after deducting the salvage value. As per the reply filed by the opposite party No.3 & 4, Loan Account of the complainant has already been closed in the month of August 2018
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay the IDV(Rs.460000/-) of vehicle after deduction of salvage value Rs.60000/- i.e. to pay Rs.400000/-(Rupees four lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.10.2017 till its realization and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to get the vehicle transferred in the name of company.
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:
04.09.2019. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
