Punjab

Sangrur

CC/492/2016

Gurwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  492

                                                Instituted on:    16.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       16.01.2017

 

Gurwinder Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of H.No.272, Ward No.1, Preet Nagar, Hareri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: E-8, EPIP, RIICO Sitapura, Industrial Area, Jaipur, through its Branch Manager (Insurer of TATA ACE bearing registration number PB-13-AB-6703).

2.     Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Branch Office: Near Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     M/s. Sachkhand Automobiles, Near Petrol Pump, Phgguwala, Tehsil & District Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.     

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1 :       Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

For Opp.party No.2. :       Shri Anil Aggarwal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.3  :       Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurwinder Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant  purchased a Tata Ace vehicle from OP number 3 and the same was got financed from OP number 2 and was insured from the OP number 1 vide policy number 10003/31/14/451554 for the period from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014 for Rs.2,38,000/-, but no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant. It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 16.04.2014 when the same was being driven by the driver Ravinder Singh  when a stray cattle came on the road and as such vehicle became uncontrolled and struck with the truck parked on the road, of which DDR number 10 dated 17.4.2014 was recorded at PP Nangal Bhoor PS Sadar Pathankot.    It is further averred that after the accident the complainant immediately intimated OP number 2 and OP number 2 intimated OP number 1 about the accident, who appointed surveyor and thereafter the vehicle was parked at the workshop of OP number 3 for repairs. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.2,42,997/-. Since the repair charges exceeded more than 75% of the IDV i.e. Rs.2,38,000/-, then consequently the vehicle was declared as total loss by the surveyor, but nothing was paid.  The complainant approached the Ops so many times, but the OP sent a letter in October, 2014 to the complainant and the claim was repudiated. It is further averred that the complainant also received a legal notice from OP umber 3 demanding parking charges, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  It is further averred that the complainant was running the vehicle for earning his daily needs by way of self employment, but despite the loss caused to the vehicle, the claim has not been settled by OP.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.2,38,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, that the OP number 3 be directed to withdraw the demand of parking charges, that the OP number 2 be directed to release the NOC to the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as the policy was issued from Jaipur, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that at the request of the complainant, the OP number 1 insured the vehicle in question for the period from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014 for Rs.2,38,000/-.  It is further stated that after receipt of the intimation, the OP immediately appointed Shri Manjit Singh Kohli, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the final loss. The surveyor informed the complainant that the loss cannot be treated on total loss basis and advised him for repair of the vehicle, but when no response was received, then the surveyor submitted his report dated 25.8.2014 to the OP and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.96,501/-. The complainant was also requested to get the vehicle repaired and to submit the bill, but all in vain. Thus, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP number 3 after getting financed from OP number 2 and the same was insured with the OP number 1.  It is admitted that the vehicle met with an accident and after receipt of the intimation regarding the accident, it was forwarded to OP number 1. However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             Record shows that the OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 27.09.2016.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of estimate of damage, Ex.C-4 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-5 copy of legal notice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Arvind Sharma, Ex.OP1/2 affidavit of MS Kohli, Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/7 copies of letters and postal receipts, Ex.OP1/8 survey report, Ex.OP1/9 copy of claim form, Ex.OP1/10 policy schedule and closed evidence.  The OP number 2 did not produce any evidence, as such the evidence of OP number 2 was closed by order of the Forum on 6.1.2017.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OP number 1 after purchasing from OP number 3 and financing from OP number 2 for the period from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014, as is evident from the copy of certificate cum policy Ex.C-2. It further reveals that the insurance of the vehicle was got done by OP number 2 at Sangrur, who is an agent of the OP number 1, as it is evident from the copy of the insurance policy, which is on record as Ex.C-2, wherein the name of agent is mentioned at M/s. STFC Corporation. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance of the vehicle was effected at Sangrur by Op number 2, as such we feel this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.

 

8.                It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 16.04.2014, intimation of which was given to the OPs, as such after receipt of the intimation the OP number 2 immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report Ex.OP1/8, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.96,501/-. But, the case of the complainant is that the vehicle suffered a major loss and after the accident, the vehicle was brought to the OP number 3 for repairs, who prepared the estimate of the damages to the tune of Rs.2,42,997/-, as is evident from the copy of the repair estimate, which is on record as Ex.C-3. But, the OP number 1 has repudiated the claim on the basis that the complainant failed to get the vehicle repaired and further failed to submit the repair bills to the OPs.

 

9.             The complainant has produced on record the copy of repair estimate dated 11.5.2014 issued by OP number 3 for Rs.2,42,997/-, as such the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since the total loss has increased more than 75% of the IDV, the claim of the vehicle should be settled on total loss basis.  But, we are unable to go with such a contention, as the OP has produced on record the copy of final survey report issued by Shri Manjit Singh Kohli, Ex.OP1/8, wherein  he has assessed the loss payable to the complainant as Rs.96,501/-. We have also gone through the survey report Ex.OP1/8 minutely and found that the surveyor has deducted an amount of Rs.41572/- on account of “if vehicle repaired at dealer than allow this rates otherwise deduct 30% from parts because vehicle not repaired at authorised dealer” .  The OP has not produced any rule or regulation authorising the surveyor to deduct this amount as mentioned above.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the claim of the complainant is settled at Rs.1,38,573/- by the OP number 1.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the OPs  did not settle the claim even after filing of the present complaint.    As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.

 

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,38,573/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.08.2016 till realisation. Since the complainant had dispute with the OP number 1, we direct that the OP number 3 shall not charge any parking charges from the complainant.  We further order the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 16, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member