Punjab

Sangrur

CC/141/2017

Jagvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Kaler

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    141

                                                Instituted on:      06.04.2017

                                                Decided on:       01.08.2017

 

Jagvir Singh aged about 55 years son of Amar Singh R/O VPO Gharachon, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 457-458, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Himalaya Marg, Sub City Centre, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160035 through Branch Manager.

2.     Park Hyundai Motors, National High Way 71, Jind Road, Near IOC Depot, Village Kamomajra Kalan, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP NO.2             :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jagvir 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 being the owner of the car bearing registration number PB-13-AH-4181 got insured from the Ops vide policy number HSB00014335 for the period from 27.11.2015 to 26.11.2016 through OP number 2.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 17.7.2016, when the car was being driven by Shri Inderjeet Singh from Sangrur to Gharachon and on the way near village Sohian some stray cows came on the road and the driver applied the brake to save the car and animals, as such, the car struck with a tree and was damaged badly.  The complainant immediately intimated the OPs regarding the damage of the vehicle  and as such the vehicle was brought to the OP number 2.  The complainant also intimated about the accident to the police of Sadar Sunam.  Further case of the complainant is that on the instructions of the Ops, the car was brought to OP number 2 for repairs. The OP number 1 also appointed surveyor, who after inspection told the complainant that the vehicle is total loss.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted all the necessary documents and the Ops got signed various blank documents from the complainant.  The complainant approached the OPs to pay the claim amount, but nothing was paid despite serving of letter dated 27.1.2017 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 an amount of Rs.5,14,500/- on account of total loss of the vehicle along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

 

2.             In the written reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint,  that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any claim.  The complainant was supposed to handover the salvage of the vehicle with vehicular documents as the value of the damaged vehicle is about Rs.1,10,000/-.  The complainant was called upon the submit various documents such as passport size photograph, latest address proof, current loan outstanding statement/ pre closure statement from the concerned financial of vehicle, cancelled cheque copy and original policy for cancellation etc.   On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops.  It is stated further that after receipt of the intimation, the OPs appointed Er. Pushpinder Kumar Garg to conduct survey and to assess the loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.3,83,500/- vide his survey report dated 10.10.2016 on net of salvage basis by assessing savage value of Rs.1,30,000/-, however, the Op had agreed to pay Rs.4,03,500/- to the OP. It is further stated that the vehicle in question has already been repaired and the settlement payment is pending for want of most essential and relevant documents on the part of the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that the Op number 2 was proceeded exparte on 17.5.2017.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and Ex.C-11 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP1/6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

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

 

6.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AH-4181 from the Op number 1 vide policy number HSB00014335 for the period from 27.11.2015 to 26.11.2016 on comprehensive basis.  It is also not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident on 17.7.2016 and damaged badly and suffered huge loss. The grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents, the OP number 1 has failed to settle the claim despite receipt of the survey report.  It is also not in dispute that the car in question was insured for Rs.5,14,500/-.  It is also not in dispute that the OP number 1 agreed to settle the claim of the complainant at Rs.4,03,500/- on net of salvage basis as the value of the salvage was assessed at Rs.1,10,000/-, but despite that the OP number 1 did not pay the claim to the complainant. We have  perused the copy of reply dated 14.12.2016 to the legal notice of the complainant, wherein the settlement of the claim as stated above is also mentioned. Ex.C-10 is the copy of general diary detail and Ex.C-11 is the affidavit of the complainant to support the allegations in the complaint.  Ex.OP1/5 is the copy of  claim form and the same is also supported by other documents. We have also perused the copy of the survey report dated 10.10.2016 Ex.OP1/6 submitted by Er. Pushpinder K. Garg and it shows that the car in question has suffered loss more than 75% of the insured value of the vehicle and as such, we feel that it comes under the category of total loss and claim should be settled accordingly.  In the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to settle the claim on total loss basis after deducting the exclusion clause of Rs.1000/- and further the complainant is bound to deliver the salvage of the vehicle.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the complainant to execute all the necessary documents in favour of the OP number 1 and get transferred the vehicle in the name of OP number 1 and OP number 1 shall also co-operate in this process and further the complainant shall deliver the salvage of the vehicle to the OP number 1 under proper receipt.  Thereafter the OP number 1 shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,13,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 6.4.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with OP number 1 within a period of thirty days of completion of formalities by the complainant as stated above.   A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.  

                Pronounced.

                August 1, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                         

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member