Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 135.
Instituted on : 03.03.2017.
Decided on : 28.02.2019.
Ravinder Kumar, age 35 years, son of Sh. Chanderbhan, Resident of H.No. 1263/12, Rajiv Colony, near Power House, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company, through its Manager, 2nd Floor, SCO-6, SCO Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon(Haryana)
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle i.e. Cruiser bearing registration No. HR-61-8586, which was got insured with the OP vide policy No. 156066591 for the period from 24.06.2016 to 23.06.2017 from the agent of OP. That IDV value of said vehicle as per policy is Rs.2,00,000/-. That on 06.10.2016, the said vehicle was met with an accident at Sukhpura Chowk, bye pass, Rohtak and damaged badly. A DDR No. 9 dated 07.10.2016 was also got registered at P.P. Sukhpura Chowk regarding the said accident. The said matter was also reported to Fire Brigade, Rohtak and its official submitted their report dated 07.10.2016. It is alleged that the complainant immediately after the accident intimated to OP about the damage of vehicle and OP appointed a surveyor and he duly inspected the said vehicle and submitted his report to the OP. Complainant has incurred a huge amount in towing the said vehicle. Complainant also suffered total loss of said vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that complainant lodged his claim alongwith required documents with the OP and same has been acknowledged by OP vide claim No. 0820236467A. The officials of OP asked him to settle the claim on net salvage basis to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- but complainant was not ready and satisfied with the same and requested to pay the claim amount on total loss basis of said vehicle but OP till date has not settled the claim. On 24.01.2017, complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damage of vehicle on total loss basis alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its accrual till realization, Rs.5,000/- as towing charges, Rs.300/- paid by complainant to Fire Brigade, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that on receipt of the intimation regarding the loss, insurance company appointed an independent IRDA licensed surveyor Sh. Naveen Chawla, who submitted his detailed report showing the liability for an amount of Rs.2,02,575/-. It was informed to the complainant that the loss of OP shall be restricted to the IDV of Rs.2,00,000/- only. It is also submitted that the complainant was, therefore, requested for cancellation of RC and thereafter the claim of complainant could be settled, but despite repeated reminders, the complainant failed to provide the cancelled RC for reasons best known to him. That OP is ready to settle the claim on total loss basis for Rs.2,00,000/- less excess clause subject to cancellation of registration certificate and policy of insured vehicle. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW/A to Ex.CW/K and has closed his evidence on dated 27.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 31.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per the affidavit filed by the respondent officials they are ready to settle the claim of the complainant after deducting the excess clause subject to cancellation of RC and policy of the insured vehicle. We have also perused the document Ex.R2, the repair assessment sheet placed on record by the complainant and as per this report the net liability of the respondent comes to Rs.202575/-. The respondent officials considered the claim of the complainant on total loss basis. At the time of arguments, it was came into the notice that the damaged vehicle was financed through Sh.Ram TPT Finance Co. Ltd. Rohtak. The counsel of the complainant made a statement that he has no objection if the awarded amount be paid to the financer of the vehicle i.e.Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
7. The main objection of the respondent is that the respondent officials requested many times to the complainant to cancel the Registration Certificate but the same formality was not completed by the complainant till today. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the complainant to cancel the R.C. or to submit the Form 29, 30, letter of subrogation, Indemnity bond and affidavit with the respondent officials within 30 days. On the other hand, respondent is directed to pick up the salvage from the complainant at their own cost within 30 days from the date of order and to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.200000/- less excess clause Rs.1500/- i.e. to pay Rs.198500/-(Rupees one lac ninety eight thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.03.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The amount so awarded shall be paid to the financer i.e. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. for settlement of loan amount taken by the complainant.
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:
28.02.2019.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
