Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/414/2022

Rashpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anish Verma

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/414/2022
Date of Institution	:	08/04/2022
Date of Decision	:	06/03/2024

 

Rashpal Singh S/o S. Chanan Singh, aged about 35 years, R/O House No. 6116, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, through its Chairman.

2.     Shriram General Insurance Co., S.C.O. 178, First Floor, Sector-38-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anish Verma, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for OPs (through VC)

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Rashpal Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that complainant is the registered owner of one BMW car bearing registration No.CH01-AY-7380 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) which was got insured from the OPs vide insurance policy (Ex.C-1) valid w.e.f. 17.3.2021 to 16.3.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).  On the night of 17.8.2021 when the subject car, being driven by one Rajinder Singh, reached near Eider Pump, Village Siau on the airport road, driver of one Nisan car bearing registration No.PB-11BR-6361, which was moving ahead of the subject car, suddenly applied brakes as a result of which the subject car struck against the rear side of the said Nisan car and the subject car was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the police in pursuance to which DDR (Ex.C-2) was recorded with the Police Station Sohana. Intimation about the accident was also given to the associate of OP-2 namely S.S. Brar on his mobile on the very next day i.e. 18.8.2021 and thereafter the subject car was parked at BMW Krishna Automobiles, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The aforesaid associate of OP-2 was requested to depute a surveyor in order to assess the loss. However, no action was taken by the OP and the subject car remained parked with Krishna Automobiles for two months, as a result of which the complainant was compelled to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- as parking charges vide receipt (Ex.C-3). After about three months of the accident, numerous requests were sent by the complainant to another associate of the OPs namely Navneet Singh on his mobile to depute surveyor who suggested the complainant to get the loss assessed through some private agency and get the vehicle repaired and the amount would be disbursed in his favour. Thereafter the complainant had taken the subject car to Mavi Car Zone at Mohali and got the loss assessed and the copy of loss assessed by Mavi Car Zone is Ex.C-4 and the copy of claim form is Ex.C-5.  Thereafter the complainant again approached another associate of the OPs namely Deepak Kumar Bhati, who assured that the claim would be processed as the documents have been sent to Jaipur.  On 7.1.2022 after almost five months of accident, complainant received letter (Ex.C-6) from OPs wherein it was stated that Navneet Singh, surveyor has been deputed to carry out the final survey and the complainant was asked to submit the documents.  The said surveyor visited the spot, but, instead of examining the subject car thoroughly, he had just taken the statement of mechanic and left the spot.  Despite of supplying all the documents and service of legal notice (Ex.C-7) on the OPs, they have neither processed the claim of the complainant nor have repudiated the same. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and estoppel.  However, it is admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car and the same was insured with the OPs vide policy (Annexure R-1).  It is further alleged that the consumer complaint of the complainant is premature as no cause of action has arisen to the complainant since the claim of the complainant is under process and has not been repudiated or closed.  It is further alleged that, in fact, complainant had taken away the subject car from the spot without intimating the OPs about the accident, as a result of which the spot survey of the accident in order to assess the actual loss and factual positon of the accident could not be assessed.  The complainant of his own firstly had taken the subject car to Krishna Automobiles and thereafter to Mavi Car Zone for repairs for the reasons best known to him without intimating the OPs.  Even intimation about accident was given to the OPs after 92 days of the accident and the same is violation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the copy of intimation slip is Annexure R-2.  It is further alleged that the complainant was requested by the OPs vide letters (Annexure R-3) to submit certain documents which were not submitted by him, till date.  Not only this, even loss to the subject car was found old one by the investigator vide his report (Annexure R-4).  However, without prejudice and without admitting any liability, it is alleged that the surveyor has assessed the liability of the company to the tune of ₹17,01,099.40 less salvage. Moreover, as the subject car is under hypothecation of the AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car and the same was got insured by him from the OPs, as is also evident from the copy of certificate cum policy schedule (Ex.C-1) valid w.e.f. 17.3.2021 to 16.3.2022 and on the relevant day, time and place the subject car, having been driven by one Rajinder Singh, met with an accident, as a result of which the same was damaged and the claim of the complainant has neither been settled nor repudiated by the OPs, till date, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in not settling the claim of the complainant, till date, and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being premature, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs. 
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence placed on record by them and the same is required to be scanned carefully to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Perusal of Ex.C-1 clearly indicates that the subject car was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 17.3.2021 to 16.3.2022 with IDV of ₹8,13,020/-.  Copy of DDR (Ex.C-2) indicates that the matter about the accident was reported to the police station Sohana and the same further indicates that the subject car was badly damaged in the accident when the front side of the same struck against another Nisan car, which was stopped by its driver by applying sudden brakes.  The estimated loss to the subject car, which was got assessed by the complainant from the repairer through estimate (Ex.C-4) indicates that the repairer has assessed the loss to the tune of ₹38,22,677/-.  Ex.C-6 letter dated 7.1.2022 sent by the OPs to the complainant indicates that the complainant was asked to submit certain documents.  Ex.C-7 is the legal notice sent to the OPs, which further indicates that complainant had requested the OPs to process his claim, but, nothing has been done by them.  Annexure R-2 is the copy of claim intimation slip which indicates that the same was sent to the OPs by the complainant on 17.11.2021.  Annexure R-3 is the copy of letter through which the OPs asked the complainant to submit certain documents and Annexure R-4 is the investigation report, which indicates that the investigator had opined that the loss to the subject car appeared to be old one, though he has found the subject car badly damaged.  Annexure R-5 is the copy of report of surveyor and loss assessor, which indicates that liability of the insured was assessed at ₹17,01,099.40 and alongwith the report photographs of the subject car are attached, which indicates that the subject car was badly damaged in the accident. 
   4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the subject car was a total loss in the accident since the repair cost of the same is more than 75% of the IDV and especially when the surveyor deputed by the OPs vide his report (Annexure R-5) has also assessed the total loss to the tune of ₹17,01,099.40 and further that the OPs have neither settled the claim of the complainant nor have repudiated the same, despite of having received the requisite documents required for the settlement of the claim, the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
   5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant himself has not submitted the documents despite of the fact that he was asked through letters (Annexure R-3) to submit the same and there is delay of 92 days in intimation about the accident by the complainant to the OPs and further that the claim is neither closed nor repudiated, consumer complaint, being premature, is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
   6. However, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the OPs as it stands proved on record that the subject car was badly damaged in the accident on the relevant day, time and place and even the surveyor deputed by the OPs vide his report (Annexure R-5) has assessed the loss of the subject car to the tune of ₹17,01,099.40 i.e. even more than 100% of the IDV of ₹8,13,020/-.
   7. So far as the documents, which the OPs, vide letters (Annexure R-3), had asked the complainant to submit are concerned, as complainant had already submitted a copy of DDR (Ex.C-2) with the OPs and other documents, as asked by the OPs, the same were required to be taken by the investigator during investigation and otherwise the same are of no relevance, especially when the surveyor of OP has found the liability of the OP company to the tune of ₹17,01,099.40, to our mind, OPs were required to settle the claim in the light of IDV of the subject car i.e. sum insured of subject policy (Ex.C-1). 
   8. Not only this, the though OPs are resisting the claim of the complainant that the consumer complaint is premature, as neither the claim has been closed nor has been repudiated, but, the complainant is not supposed to wait indefinitely for the outcome of the claim lodged with the insurer and in the present case, as it has come on record that the OPs have not processed and settled the claim of the complainant as per the guidelines prescribed by the IRDA, knowing fully well that the subject car has been badly damaged in the accident even after receiving the report (Annexure R-5) of the surveyor  on 16.5.2022, itself proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 
   9. So far as the defence of the OPs that there is delay of 92 days in giving intimation about the accident to the OPs and the same being violation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy is concerned, as the investigator of the OPs himself in his report (Annexure R-4) has mentioned that the DDR was immediately recorded after the accident disclosing about the loss to the subject car and also that the complainant has specifically stated in his consumer complaint that he had intimated one S.S. Brar, official of the associate branch of OP-2 on the very next day telephonically on his mobile (No.70148-26668) and when no action was taken by OPs for three months, he again contacted another associate of the OPs namely Navneet Singh (92167-30312), which fact has not been denied by the OPs in their written version that the aforesaid persons are not associated with the OPs, it is unsafe to hold that there is any delay in giving intimation about the accident by the complainant to the OPs. 
   10. In the case in hand, as it stands proved on record that the subject car was a total loss and further as the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant on total loss basis, till date, the said act of OPs certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   11. So far as the quantum of amount to be granted to the complainant is concerned, when the IDV of the subject car is ₹8,13,020/- and the liability of the OPs/insurer was assessed by the surveyor to the tune of ₹17,01,999.40, which is higher than IDV, as discussed above, it is safe to hold that the OPs/insurer are liable to pay the IDV amount i.e. ₹8,13,020/- minus ₹2,000/- (i.e. compulsory deductible) = ₹8,11,020/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment suffered by him.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹8,11,020/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of the present consumer complaint onwards. The wreck/salvage of the subject car shall, however be retained and disposed of by the OPs/insurer at their own.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. It is, however, made clear that the bank/financier shall have first charge over the aforesaid awarded amount, to the extent the same is due to be paid by the complainant towards the discharge of loan liability, if any.  
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

06/03/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member