Haryana

Kaithal

CC/223/2022

Surender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram GIC Ltd. etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Saini

07 Dec 2023

ORDER

                      

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 223 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   09.09.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      07.12.2023.

 

Surender Kumar s/o Shri Balbir Singh, r/o near Old Bus Stand, VPO Pai, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                       Versus

 

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., C/o E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., C/o Branch Office Ambala Road, Kaithal.
3. HDB Finance Services Ltd., C/o Branch Office SCO No.329, 1^st Floor, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.
4. HDB Finance Services Ltd., Zenith House Ground Keshavrao, Khadya Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
5.  Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., C/o Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Managing Director.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Sanjeev Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Arvind Khurania, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Parties No.3,4 & 5 ex-parte.

                   Opposite Party No.2 given-up.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a car make Maruti Swift Tour S CNG bearing Registration No.HR64A-1718 from OP No.5 in the year 2019 and also availed a loan from OPs No.3 & 4 and used to pay due loan installments regularly. The said vehicle was duly insured with OPs No.1 & 2 vide policy No.101026/31/21/011011 w.e.f. 29.12.2020 to 28.12.2021. He also took due permit in respect of all India Tourist Permit to drive the said vehicle to earn his livelihood. On 21.12.2021 at about 03:00:30 PM, he took the said vehicle at the premises of OP No.5 for getting fitness certificate, where a job card retail tax invoice was generated by the officials of OP No.5 in his name. After performing due formalities, the concerned officials assured about issuing fitness certificate and allowed him to take the vehicle out of their premises. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.12.2021 and thereafter, he assured about issuing loss suffered by him and OPs No.1 & 2 appointed a surveyor Mr. Deepak Grover to verify as well as assess the loss. OP No.5 shifted the said vehicle on 23.12.2021 at the premises of Amar Automobiles (Maruti Authorized Service Station), Ambala Road, Pehowa, where after inspection, they issued an estimated bill of Rs.6,95,747/- (Rs.6,69,067/- as approximate loss + Rs.13380 + Rs.13300/- as parking charges) and same was verified by said surveyor Deepak Grover. Despite performing due legal formalities by OPs No.1 & 2, no claim has been paid to him despite repeated requests. The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OP No.1 appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, whereas, OPs No.3,4 & 5 did not appear before this Commission and proceeded against ex-parte. OP No.2 has been given up.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement stated that as per complainant version his insured commercial vehicle (car) bearing Registration No.HR-64A-1718 has been shifted for getting the fitness certificate from OP No.5 and later on without having fitness certificate, he has put his vehicle on road, which met with accident. The information was given to OP No.1 on the next day, who duly appointed the surveyor M/s Grover Associates and claim No.10003/31/22/n/0077118 has been generated against insurance policy No.101026/31/21/011011 of said vehicle. After verification, it was found that the vehicle was put on road knowingly full well that the fitness certificate had expired at the time of accident. Accordingly, a letter dated 07.03.2022 was served on complainant asking reply within 7 days, failing which, company will presume that the complainant is not interested to pursue the claim. When complainant was aware that his vehicle is not having fitness certificate and he should not put his vehicle on road without proper fitness certificate. As such, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as other rules. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OPs and complaint in hand deserves to be dismissed with special cost.

5.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C22.

6.                On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1 & Annexure R2.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a car make Maruti Swift Tour bearing Registration No.HR64A-1718 from OP No.5 in the year 2019 and also availed a loan from OPs No.3 & 4. He further argued that the said vehicle was duly insured with OPs No.1 & 2 vide policy No.101026/31/21/011011 w.e.f. 29.12.2020 to 28.12.2021. The complainant also took due permit in respect of all India Tourist Permit to drive the said vehicle to earn his livelihood. He further argued that on 21.12.2021 at about 03:00:30 PM, the complainant took the said vehicle at the premises of OP No.5 for getting fitness certificate, where a job card retail tax invoice was generated by the officials of OP No.5 in his name and after performing due formalities, the concerned officials assured about issuing fitness certificate and allowed him to take the vehicle out of their premises. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.12.2021 and thereafter, the complainant assured about issuing loss suffered by him and OPs No.1 & 2 appointed a surveyor Mr. Deepak Grover to verify as well as assess the loss. OP No.5 shifted the said vehicle on 23.12.2021 at the premises of Amar Automobiles (Maruti Authorized Service Station), Ambala Road, Pehowa, where after inspection, they issued an estimated bill of Rs.6,95,747/- (Rs.6,69,067/- as approximate loss + Rs.13380 + Rs.13300/- as parking charges) and same was verified by said surveyor Deepak Grover. He further argued that despite performing due legal formalities by OPs No.1 & 2, no claim has been paid to him despite repeated requests, which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that as per complainant version his insured commercial vehicle (car) bearing Registration No.HR-64A-1718 has been shifted for getting the fitness certificate from OP No.5 and later on without having fitness certificate, he has put his vehicle on road, which met with accident. He further argued that the information was given to OP No.1 on the next day, who duly appointed the surveyor M/s Grover Associates and claim No.10003/31/22/n/0077118 has been generated against insurance policy No.101026/31/21/011011 of said vehicle. After verification, it was found that the vehicle was put on road knowingly full well that the fitness certificate had expired at the time of accident. He further argued that accordingly, a letter dated 07.03.2022 was served on complainant asking reply within 7 days, failing which, company will presume that the complainant is not interested to pursue the claim. When complainant was aware that his vehicle is not having fitness certificate and he should not put his vehicle on road without proper fitness certificate. As such, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as other rules. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OPs and complaint in hand deserves to be dismissed with special cost.

10.              Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of car in question bearing Registration No.HR64A-1718, vide Registration Certificate Annexure C1, which was duly insured with OPs No.1 & 2, vide Certificate Cum Policy Schedule Annexure C-2 valid from 29.12.2020 to 28.12.2021 with IDV of Rs.5,05,000/-,. The complainant had also All India Tourist Permit for the said car Annexure C-4 & C-5.

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that on 21.12.2021 at about 03:00:30 PM, the complainant took the said vehicle at the premises of OP No.5 for getting fitness certificate, where a job card retail tax invoice was generated by the officials of OP No.5, in his name and after performing due formalities, the concerned officials assured about issuing fitness certificate and allowed him to take the vehicle out of their premises. The complainant produced Invoice No.1/8C/21005102 dated 21.12.2021 at 15:00:30, issued by OP No.5 Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., in his favour, on the case file, from which, it is evident that OP No.5 had taken the considerable amount of Rs.424/- as Vehicle Fitness Testing, from the complainant, but as per complainant, it had not issued the fitness certificate, to him, at that time and allowed him to take the vehicle out of the premises. Since OP No.5 did not appear, before this Commission and was opted to be proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, this Commission has no other option, except to believe the above version of the complainant that despite receipt of considerable amount of Rs.424/-, OP No.5 failed to issue the Fitness Certificate, to the complainant on the same day i.e. 21.12.2021, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.5.  

12.              Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.12.2021 and thereafter, OPs No.1 & 2 appointed a surveyor Mr. Deepak Grover to verify as well as assess the loss. It is further alleged that OP No.5 shifted the said vehicle on 23.12.2021 at the premises of Amar Automobiles (Maruti Authorized Service Station), Ambala Road, Pehowa, where after inspection, they issued an estimated bill of Rs.6,95,747/- (Rs.6,69,067/- as approximate loss + Rs.13380 + Rs.13300/- as parking charges). It is further alleged that despite performing due legal formalities by OPs No.1 & 2, no claim has been paid to the complainant, despite repeated requests. To prove his above contentions, complainant produced photographs of damaged vehicle as Annexure C-18 to Annexure C-21 on the case file. He also produced his OPD prescription slip dated 21.12.2021 of District Civil Hospital, Kaithal as Annexure C-15 & C-16 respectively.

13.              Contrary to it, OP No.1 insurance company has denied to release the claim of the complainant, on the ground that after verification, it was found that the vehicle was put on road knowingly full well that the fitness certificate had expired at the time of accident, as such, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as other rules.

14.              From the above pleadings, we found that since OP No.5 had not issued the Fitness Certificate, to the complainant, on 21.12.2021 (the day of accident of vehicle in question), even after receiving the considerable amount for the same, due to that sole reason, OP No.1 insurance company had refused to release the claim amount, to the complainant, under the policy in question, due to expiry of Fitness Certificate, on the day of accident. So, the above act of OP No.5 amounts to deficiency in service.

15.              The vehicle in question was met with an accident on 21.12.2021 and undeniably, the policy in question Annexure C-2, which was valid from 29.12.2020 to 28.12.2021 having IDV of Rs.5,05,000/-, was in existence, on the day of accident i.e. on 21.12.2021, as such, OP No.1 cannot deny to release the claim of the complainant, on the ground that Fitness Certificate of vehicle in question has been expired, on the day of accident. The above act of OP No.1 also amounts to deficiency in service.

16.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In the complaint, complainant demanded Rs.6,95,747/-, but it is pertinent to mention here that as per policy Annexure C2, the IDV of vehicle in question was Rs.5,05,000/-, as such, complainant is entitled to receive the said amount, jointly and severally, from OPs No.1 and 5 along with compensation amount + litigation expenses.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct OPs No.1 & 5, jointly and severally, to pay the claim amount of Rs.5,05,000/-, to the complainant, after deducting the salvage value of the vehicle in question (in case the damaged vehicle was retained by the complainant), as assessed by the surveyor M/s Deepak Associates in his survey report. OPs No.1 & 5 are further directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.5000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-, to the complainant. OPs No.1 & 5 are further directed to make the compliance, of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

18.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:07.12.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.