Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 653
Instituted on : 29/10/2021
Decided on :11.10.2024
M/s Bharat KrishiAvmPashuPalan Farm situated at Village- Khedi Sadh, Thesil- Sampla and District Rohtak through its proprietor Rajiv age 43 years, s/o Sh. Raghbir Singh.
………...Complainant
Vs
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Serving office situated at 3rd floor Shanti complex, opp. Civil Hospital, Jagadhari Road, Ambala and branch office also situated at Narayana complex, 2nd floor, civil road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
………...Opposite party
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.P. Dhankar, Advocate for complainant.
Ms. Ruchi Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that Mr. Rajeev is the proprietor of the complainant firm that ownsthe vehicle, a Bolero Maxi truck plus CNG BS-4 with registration No. HR-46E-9285, which was insured by the opposite party(the insurance company) with a policy covering the risk of Rs. 5,79,500/- from 10.04.2019 to 09.04.2020. The complainant paid a premium of Rs.16,074/- for this insurance. The vehicle was financed by HDB Financial Services Ltd. and the complainant has been paying the loan installment regularly. The alleged vehicle met with an accident on 23.08.2019,near village NilothiDistt. Jhajjar, and an FIR No. 259 dated 23.08.2019 was lodged under sections 279,304-A and 337 of the Indian Panel Code (IPC) at Police Station Asauda. The complainant informed the opposite party about the accident. After the accident, the vehicle was taken to P.P. Mahindra agency work shop atSonipat. After thorough survey, the opposite party’s surveyor concluded that the vehicle was completely damaged. The complainant duly filed a claim with the insurance company under claim case no. 7210031230. At the request of opposite party, the complainant also obtained a court order from Shri Kaushal Kumar Yadav, JMIC Bahadurgarh, granting permission to sell the vehicle vide its order dated 29.01.2021. However, when the complainant informed the opposite party’sSurveyor Sh. M.S. Uppal, about the order and the availability of the original R.C, the surveyor avoidedto collect the documents for the unknown reasons. The complainant repeatedly contacted the officials of the opposite party for settlement of claim but despite fulfilling all the formalities by the complainant, the insurance company has not settled the claim till date. Even after receiving the legal notice through Advocate of complainant, the opposite party has not settled the claim. This act of opposite party is illegal and amountsto deficiency in service The said vehicle is still lying at the workshop in Sonipat and the workshop officials have continuously requested the complainant either totake the vehicle from their workshop or to pay the parking charges. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount Rs.5,79,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service, harassment, cost of litigation and parking charges if any.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that the complaintshould be dismissed due to non-inclusion of necessary party, specifically the financier of insured vehicle, who is not part of the complaint. It is further submitted thatthe opposite party confirmed the vehicle’s registration and insurance details as provided by the complainant. The opposite party appointed an independent IRDA licensed surveyor, Sh.M.S.Uppal& Associates to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted their report for settlement of the claim on constructive loss basis with salvage to be disposed of by the complainant with registration certificate on ‘as is where is basis’ and the surveyor showed liability on the part of insurance company under constructive loss basis to an amount of Rs.399000/-. The opposite partyrequested the complainant to submit the following documents with the insurance company for settlement of claim i.e. 1) Driver bail order as driver ran away from spot, no name mentioned in FIR, 2) Vehicle release order, 3)Consent as per the surveyor assessment, 4) duly filled KYC form alongwith address proof. But despite repeated requests of the opposite party, complainant has failed to submit the required documents. Hence the claim of the complainant could not be settled. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of the present complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed his evidence on 18.11.2022. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party has tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-2 but failed to adduce any further evidence, hence, the evidence of opposite party was closed by the court order on 20.10.2023.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint the main contention of the respondent insurance company is that the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the insurance company. As per written statement filed by the opposite party it is submitted that complainant has not submitted the following documents with the insurance company for settlement of claim i.e. 1) Driver bail order as driver ran away from spot, no name mentioned in FIR, 2) Vehicle release order, 3)Consent as per the surveyor assessment, 4) duly filled KYC form alongwith address proof. It has been further submitted in the written statement that surveyor M.S.Uppal& Associates was appointed by the insurance company to assess the loss in the vehicle in question. He has submitted his report with the insurance company and suggested the company to settle the claim on constructive loss basis with salvage to be disposed of by the complainant with RC on ‘as is where is basis’. The surveyor further submitted that the liability on the part of insurance company under constructive loss basis comes to Rs.399000/-. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The main contention of the insurance company is that the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the insurance company. After perusal of the documents it was found that the complainant has placed on record a copy of release order as Ex.C3 dated 29.01.2021 issued by the Ld.Sh.Kaushal Kumar Yadav, JMIC, Bahadurgarh to release the vehicle no. Bolero HR46E9285 on superdari in case titled as State Vs. Rajesh, FIR No.259/19 u/s 279,337, 304A IPC of P.S.AsaudhaBahadurgarh. Copy of order dated 29.01.2021 issued by Ld. Kaushal Kumar Yadav JMIC, Bahadurgarh is also placed on record as Ex.C8. Perusal of this order shows that the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate granted a permission to sale of vehicle. All the required documents are on the file i.e. Superdari order and name of the accused is also mentioned in the Superdari order. The respondent insurance company demanded a consent letter from the complainant. On this point we came to the conclusion that IDV of the vehicle as per the insurance certificate is Rs.579500/- whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss on constructive loss basis as Rs.399000/-. He assessed the cost of damaged vehicle as Rs.180500/- which is illegal and unjustified. The vehicle comes under the total loss. No one will purchase the damaged vehicle on such higher rates. Moreover the cost of the vehicle was assessed online. The surveyor has wrongly assessed the salvage value as Rs.180500/-. In our view the salvage value of the damaged vehicle as Rs.50000/- is justified. Hence the non settlement of claim by the opposite party despite submitting the required documents by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of vehicle after deducting the salvage value of Rs.50000/- i.e. to Rs.529500/-(Rs.579500/- less Rs.50000/-) alongwith interest and compensation. It is also on record that as per Insurance Certificate Ex.C7 the vehicle in question is hypothecated with HDB Financial Services Ltd., Rohtak and the complainant has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that the loan agreement has been terminated by the alleged finance company.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.529500/-(Rupees five lac twenty nine thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.29.10.2021 to till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the HDB Financial Services Ltd. Rohtak for settlement of loan account of the complainant. It is made clear that after settlement of loan account, if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.10.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
