BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.301/16.
Date of instt.: 03.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 28.07.2017.
Jashvir Singh S/o Sh. Gian Chand, r/o Village Balu, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 101-130, Natraj, Junction of Western Expression, Highway and Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (East) Mumbai (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director.
- Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 3 K.M. Stone, Ambala Road near By-pass Kaithal.
- Insurance Company and Broker C/o Globe Toyata B-51, Opposite Verka Milk Plant Industrial Area Phase-VI, Chandigarh-160055, Claim No.216953.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Vinod Bura, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the Op No.1.
Sh. Surajbhan, Adv. for Op No.2.
Op No.3 exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a car Fotuner Toyota bearing registration No.HR-70C-1266 from Sh. Rajat Gautam and got insured the same with the Ops vide policy No.TSB/30011657 valid w.e.f. 19.01.2015 to 18.01.2016. It is alleged that on 20.11.2015, the said vehicle met with an accident and due to which, the above-said vehicle was damaged badly. Information regarding accident was given to the Ops. It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the vehicle from Bansal Motor Store, Hisar and spent Rs.3,11,224/- on the repair of said vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents, but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 29.11.2016. Ops No.1 & 2 filed their replies separately. Op No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy in question was issued from Mumbai and the claim of the complainant was processed and closed temporarily by the answering Op from New Delhi, where the answering Op is having its office; that the claim of complainant was duly processed by the answering Op by way of appointment of an IRDA approved independent Surveyor Mr. Anil Kumar Sehgal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for conducting the final survey, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.93,500/- and submitted detailed motor survey report dt. 18.03.2016; that the claim of complainant was closed temporarily on 12.08.2016 in the system of the company due to the issue of ownership transfer endorsement as it was noticed while processing the subjected claim that the owner transfer & change of vehicle number has been done in alternate Toyota Policy No.TSB/30011657 on 19.06.2015 and 20.06.2015. However, it is not reflecting in the Private Car Certificate of insurance-cum-policy schedule bearing policy No.0000000002490917 issued by the answering Op. The present complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature since the answering Op has neither repudiated nor denied the claim of complainant and will decide the admissibility of claim on resolving the issue of ownership transfer endorsement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, it is denied that the complainant ever informed about the alleged accident to the answering Op, as alleged by him; that neither the vehicle in question was reported to the workshop of the answering Op for repair nor any survey was done by the Op No.2 or on behalf of Op No.2; that the complainant himself is averring that the vehicle in question was taken by him for accidental repair to Bansal Motor Store, Hisar and it is pertinent to mention that Bansal Motor Store has no concern with the answering Op. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C12 and closed evidence on 16.02.2017. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit, Annexure-RW1/A and document Annexure-RA and Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit, Annexure RW2/A and closed their evidence on 07.04.2017.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased the car bearing registration No.HR-70C-1266 from Sh. Rajat Gautam which was insured with the Ops vide policy No.TSB/30011657 valid w.e.f. 19.01.2015 to 18.01.2016 and after purchasing the car, the above-said policy was also transferred in the name of complainant vide endst. No. No.SB/30011657/02 dt. 19.06.2015 from 19.06.2015 to 18.01.2016. He further argued that on 20.11.2015, the said vehicle met with an accident and the said vehicle was damaged badly. He further argued that the complainant got repaired the vehicle from Bansal Motor Store, Hisar and spent Rs.3,11,224/- on the repair of said vehicle. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents, but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the claim of complainant was duly processed by the Op No.1 by way of appointment of an IRDA approved independent Surveyor Mr. Anil Kumar Sehgal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for conducting the final survey, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.93,500/- and submitted detailed motor survey report dt. 18.03.2016. He further argued that the claim of complainant was closed temporarily on 12.08.2016 in the system of the company due to the issue of ownership transfer endorsement as it was noticed while processing the subjected claim that the owner transfer & change of vehicle number has been done in alternate Toyota Policy No.TSB/30011657 on 19.06.2015 and 20.06.2015. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 argued that neither the vehicle in question was reported to the workshop of the Op No.2 for repair nor any survey was done by the Op No.2 or on behalf of Op No.2. He further argued that the complainant himself has alleged that the vehicle in question was taken by him for accidental repair to Bansal Motor Store, Hisar and the said Bansal Motor Store has no concern with the Op No.2.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that there is no dispute that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from Rajat Gautam and the said vehicle was insured with the Op No.1 vide policy No.TSB/30011657 valid w.e.f. 19.01.2015 to 18.01.2016 and the same was transferred in the name of complainant vide endst. No. No.SB/30011657/02 dt. 19.06.2015 from 19.06.2015 to 18.01.2016. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.11.2015. It is also not disputed that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 has not settled the same. The Op No.1 has admitted that he closed the claim of complainant temporarily on 12.08.2016 due to the issue of ownership transfer endorsement in the system of the company. As admitted by Op No.1 that the surveyor submitted his report dt. 18.03.2016 but inspite of the submission of the report by the surveyor, the Op No.1 did not settle the claim of complainant and rather the same was temporarily closed on 12.08.2016. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority cited in 2017(1) CLT page 246 (NC) titled as UIC Ltd. Vs. Super Bakers (India) Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that the claim was to be settled within 30 days from the date of receipt of surveyor report, as per IRDA guidelines.
In the present case, the Op. No.1 has not settled the claim of the complainant till now, therefore, the Op. No.1 has failed to follow the guidelines of IRDA. In these circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the OP. No.1 is deficient in providing services to the complainant.
8. As already stated above that it is admitted by Op. No.1 that surveyor was deputed by him and according to the report of surveyor, Annexure-RA, the surveyor has assessed the net loss amounting to the tune of Rs.93,500/-. The surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of the report of surveyor, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.93,500/ on account of loss suffered by the complainant.
9. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op No.1 to pay Rs.93,500/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant and further to pay Rs.3,300/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.28.07.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
To rebut the contention of Op No.1, the complainant has placed on file copy of RC, Mark-C4 vide which it is clear that the complainant had got transferred the ownership of vehicle in his name and according to the said RC, the vehicle in question was valid from 28.01.2010 to 18.01.2025.
