Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/150/2021

Nishant Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG - Opp.Party(s)

N.S Sharma

14 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                             Complaint Case No. : 150 of 2021

                                                             Date of Institution    : 13.08.2021

                                                             Date of decision:      : 14.06.2024

 

Nishant Sharma son of Sh. Rajesh Sharma R/o village Dhigawa Jatan, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

                              ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Zonal Office at A-2, 2^nd Floor, Main Nazafgarh Road, New Karla Hospital, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hansi Road, Opp. Residence of Sh. B.D. Gupta, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager/authorized signatory.

 

3. Shiva Auto Car (India) Pvt. Ltd., C-22, Lohia Nagar, Near Shiva Scooter Agency, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.), through its proprietor/Partner/Manager/Authorized signatory.

 

4. Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd., Gateway, Building, Appolo Bunder Mumbai-400001 (Maharashtra) through its M.D./Authorized signatory.

 

5. Supreme Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer of Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd., Loharu Road, Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Partber/Authorized signatory.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Nihal Singh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Avinash Sardana, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2 (defence struck off).

                    Ms. Ritu Rani, Advocate for OP No.4.

Sh. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for OP No.5 (defence struck off).

                    OP No.3 exparte vide order dated 29.10.2021.  

                             

                                                  ORDER

 

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant purchased a Mahendra XUV 500 FWD W7 Car from OP No.3 on 10.11.2020. At that time, Rs.1500/- were charged from complainant for the purpose of H.P. + Temporary Registration Certificate, Rs.56099/- as insurance premium and Rs.9090/- as handling charges by OP No.3. OP No.3 handed over the insurance policy and delivery gate pass to the complainant but temporary R.C. not given.  It is stated that on 16.11.2020, the vehicle met with an accident. OP insurance company was informed qua the accident and submitted claim form No.72105521397 of repairing of the vehicle under policy no.0176304337.  Complainant has submitted that as per instructions of OP No.2, the vehicle was brought for repair at OP No.5 and after repairs, bills of Rs.43,576/- dated 28.12.2020 was issued by it. Since, the vehicle was under insurance cover, so, OP No.5 assured that as and when the repairing charges are received from insurance company, then the paid amount by complainant would be returned but it was not returned despite several requests. Complainant also sent a letter to OP No.1 on 27.01.2021 but of no avail rather the OP insurance company repudiated the claim  vide letter dated 27.01.2021 on grounds that vehicle in question was temporary registered from 17.11.2020 to 06.12.2020 whereas the accident took place on 16.11.2020 i.e. prior to the cover of insurance. Complainant agitated the said repudiation of claim vide letter dated 25.06.2021 but this correspondence did not for want of proper address of OP. Thereafter, legal notice dated 25.06.2021 was sent to the OPs but OP No.1 refused to take the notice.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops to pay Rs.43,576/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization, further to pay Rs.2.00 lac as compensation for harassment besides Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Notices were sent to the OPs.  OPs No.1 & 2 filed their written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, cause of action, territorial jurisdiction and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had to insured his new vehicle vide insurance policy no.0176304337 for a period from 10.11.2020 to 09.11.2021 for sum insured of Rs.14,13,286/- subject to certain terms and conditions of the policy binding upon insured and insurer.  It is admitted that intimation of alleged accident was received by it whereby the vehicle met with an accident on 16.11.2020.  Mr. Satish Kumar, Surveyor was appointed who submitted report to the effect that vehicle was being driven without any registration thus committing breach of Sec.39, Chapter IV of MV Act, 1988.  The answering OP informed the complainant about this vide letter dated 27.01.2021 but in the absence of any revert, claim was finally repudiated vide letter dated 08.03.2021.  However, it is submitted that alleged accident took place on 16.11.2020 but the temporary registration was valid from 17.11.2020, therefore, the insured vehicle was being plying without any registration as on the date of loss.  As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.4 file its written statement submitting that OP No.4 being manufacturer of the alleged vehicle does not indulge in sale and after sale services. As such, it has been added as a party in this complainant unnecessarily. It is clarified that according to Dealership Agreement between, manufacturer and dealer are two separate legal entity and only deals with each other on principal to principal basis. It is submitted that liability of manufacturer can be held only in cases whereby there are manufacturing defect, but there is nothing in the present case. As such, denied for any indulgence of answering OP in this case and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.

4.                 OP No.5 filed written statement submitting that the answering OP has been joined as a party in this complaint unnecessarily as it had repaired the vehicle to the satisfaction of complainant and taken charges thereof. The claim of complainant pertains to OP insurance company, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                 OP No.3 did not bother to appear despite registered post, as such, it was proceeded against as exparte vide orders dated 29.10.2021.

6.                 It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of proceedings, defence of OPs No.1, 2 & 5 were struck off vide order dated 05.01.2024.

7.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit Ex. CW1/A of complainant alongwith documents Annexure CW1/B to Annexure CW1/N and closed the evidence on 29.02.2024.

8.                 On the other side, Ld. Counsel for OP No.4 closed evidence after tendering affidavits of Mr. Rajesh Bhaseen, Senior General Manager and as Ex. RW4/A & Ex. RW4/B alongwith documents Ex. R-1  & Ex. R-3 and closed the evidence on 13.05.2024.  

9.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully. Written arguments on behalf of OP No.4 filed.

10.               At the outset, perusal of insurance policy (Annexure CW1/C) reveals that the vehicle in question was insured with OPs No.1 & 2 for Own Damage from 10.11.2020 to 09.11.2021 and Liability period was from 10.11.2020 to 09.11.2023.  Letter dated 27.01.2021 issued by OP Insurance Company reveals that the claim of complainant was denied on the ground that accident took place on 16.11.2020 whereas the temporary RC was valid from 17.11.2020 to 16.12.2020. Perusal of delivery gate pass (Annexure CW1/B) issued by OP No.3  wherein it is mentioned that  this OP has sold the vehicle to complainant  and besides the purchase amount of the vehicle, it has charged from complainant Rs.56,099/- towards insurance premium and Rs.1500/- as H.P. + Temp. regn. on 10.11.2020.

11.               After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that the complainant has paid the temporary registration fee amount etc. to OP No.3 on 10.11.2020 and it has let the vehicle go on road by issuing gate pass, meaning thereby that OP No.3 was bounden to get the vehicle registered on the day itself when the gate pass issued by it.  Further, we have noticed that the vehicle was insured by OPs No.1 & 2 on 10.11.2020 then question arises as to how without any temporary registration, the vehicle was got insured by OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company. Therefore, we have come to conclusion that the OPs No.1 to 2 are deficient in providing proper service to the complainant because of which, complainant has to suffer monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for harassment. It is not a dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 16.11.2020 and got repaired by OP No.5 and bill of Rs.43,576/- was issued by it as repair charges of the vehicle. Admittedly, the said amount has paid by complainant to OP No.5. As such, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to get repair charges of the vehicle as well as compensation for deficiency in service and mental and physical harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 & 2, jointly and severally,  are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.43,576/- (Rs. Forty three thousand five hundred seventy six) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

(ii)      And to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on account of harassment and deficiency in service  caused to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:14.06.2024