Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/28/2017

Charanjit Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Cholamandalam - Opp.Party(s)

In person

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

                     Consumer Complaint No.  28 of 07.06.2017

                      Date of Decision             :   30.10.2017

 

 

Charanjit Bhatia S/o Hans Raj Bhatia resident of VPO Adoana, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Dare House 2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600001, through its General Manager.
2. Dada Motors Private Limited, Head Office Savitri Dholewal, GT Road, Ludhiana – 300355000, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, through its General Manager.

                                                          ….Opposite Parties

                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection Act, 1986

cOUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         In person

For OP No.1                  :         Sh.B.P.S. Panesar, Advocate

For OP No.2                 :         Ex parte.

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is presented by complainant wherein he alleged that he is owner of a L.M.V. (Jeep/Gypsy) Safari 2.2EX make Telco Limited bearing No.PB46K0555, Model 12/2010, which was insured from the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through its dealer OP-2 vide policy No.3362/01311465/000/00 dated 04.02.2017 for Rs.3,60,000/-, valid upto 03.02.2018, after making payment of premium of Rs.15,214/-.
2. That the above said vehicle was damaged in a dispute in Village Adoana on 04.03.2017 at 1:20 PM and in this regard a Daily Dairy Report No.018 and FIR No.028 dated 05.03.2017 were lodged with P.S. Balachaur under Section 323, 506, 427, 34 I.P.C.  So the above said vehicle was kept under the custody of PS Balachaur till 19.04.2017.  The complainant got released the vehicle from the custody of PS Balachaur on Supardari after furnishing Supardari bonds of Rs.8,00,000/- as ordered by Sh.Rajesh Ahluwalia, PCS, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur.  The complainant carried out above said vehicle on 20.04.2017 at workshop of Dada Motors, G.T. Road, Jalandhar Bye-pass Ludhiana and also informed to the dealer about damaged to the above said vehicle and also produced the documentary proof.  The concerned person of Workshop delivered an estimation report of Rs.42,360/-.  The vehicle of the complainant was kept in Dada Workshop from 20.04.2017 to 27.05.2017.  But the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP-1 and its information was sent vide letter dated 19.05.2017 at the wrong address of the complainant, which was never received by the complainant but unfortunately complainant came to know from OP-2 regarding aforesaid repudiation letter which was received by OP-2 through Email and thereafter, the complainant was forced to pay the repair charges of the vehicle i.e. Rs.43,367/- on 27.05.2017 to OP-2 and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with prayer that complaint of the complainant be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the repair charges of the vehicle as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental harassment to the complainant.  
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement and contested the complaint of the complainant, taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form.  Further, the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and further alleged that complaint of the complainant is bad for mis-joinder of parties as no cause of action arose against OP-2 and this complaint is not maintainable.  Further, alleged that complainant did not seek the permission of this Forum under Section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before filing the complaint against answering OP-1, who is residing and carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and further alleged that the complainant concealed the material facts from the Forum because the alleged accident/loss caused to the vehicle on 04.03.2017 but the claim was intimated to the OP-1 on 04.05.2017 after much delay and as such there is clear cut breach of condition No. 1&9 of the Insurance Policy and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the insured claim.  On merits, the purchase of the insurance policy by the complainant is admitted but remaining averments made in the complaint are categorically denied.  Lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
4. The OP-2 also filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable against answering OP as no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against answering OP and further averred that the answering OP has unnecessary been dragged into present litigation without any fault or deficiency in service on their part.  The only role played by the answering OP is that it has got insured the vehicle of the complainant from Insurance Company i.e. OP-1, as such complaint of the complainant qua answering OP may be dismissed.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant brought the said vehicle to Data Motors on 20.04.2017 and the estimate report for repair of the vehicle was delivered to the complainant but remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied.  After filing reply, OP-2 did not come present and ultimately was proceeded against ex parte.    
5. In order to prove the case, complainant, has tendered his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.  Similarly, counsel for OP No.1, has tendered affidavit of Satyabratta Das, Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A and also tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP-1 and also scanned the complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
7. From the very outset, it is established on the file that the complainant – Charanjit Bhatia is proved to be owner of the vehicle bearing No.PB46K0555 and the said vehicle admittedly got insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited -OP-1 through its agent i.e. OP-2 – Dada Motors and get the policy which is admittedly valid for 04.02.2017 to 03.02.2018 for insured amount of Rs.3,60,000/- and it is also not denied that premium of the policy i.e. Rs.15,214/- was paid by the complainant at the time of getting insurance.
8. Further, the factum in regard to damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant that a dispute occurred on 04.03.2017 at 1:20 P.M. and whereupon a criminal case vide FIR No.28 dated 05.03.2017 with P.S. Balachaur under Section 323, 506, 427, 34 I.P.C. was registered and it is also admitted fact that the complainant filed insurance claim, though the same was repudiated by the OP-1 vide repudiation letter dated 19.05.2017 Ex.C-7 and same letter has been brought on record by OP No.1 as Ex.OP1/1 and main ground taken in the said repudiation letter that there is much delay in intimation and submission of insurance claim because the occurrence took place on 04.03.2017, whereas the intimation was given to the Insurance Company on 04.05.2017 and it is clearly violation of rules No.1 and 9 of the Insurance Policy and due to that ground the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.
9. The question remains whether the delay was caused for submitting Insurance Claim is intentionally, voluntarily and the same is not explained by the complainant and these facts are required deep consideration for reaching to the right conclusion.  First of all, we like to make it clear that despite delay of 17 days of filing claim, the damaged vehicle of the complainant was inspected by Surveyor appointed by OP-1 and report of the Surveyor is brought on the file by OP-1 as Ex.OP1/2 and who assessed the loss of the damages of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.  The surveyor was appointed on 05.02.2017 as mentioned in the Surveyor Report Ex.OP1/2, whereas, the OP-1 alleged in the repudiation letter that the intimation/insurance claim was submitted on 04.05.2017, if there is any delay then why the OP-1 carried futile exercise for appointing Surveyor to inspect the vehicle and to submit report, the fact in regard to delay can be considered at the first movement and to decide the claim case at that time, but the OP-1 has appointed Surveyor and get a report just to make a ground for repudiating the claim of the complainant, but virtually this case is somehow different because as per version of the complainant, occurrence took place on 04.03.2017 and in that occurrence, the vehicle of the complainant was damaged and to this effect a criminal case was also registered as per DDR No.18 and copy of the DDR is available on the file as Ex.C-4, obviously when the case was registered and vehicle was damaged in that accident, the same is required to be taken into custody by the police and accordingly for taking the vehicle from police custody, the complainant has approached to the court for releasing the vehicle on Supardari and accordingly complainant got the order from Court for releasing of the vehicle on Sapurdari.  Copy of releasing order is available in the file as Ex.C-5 and then complainant himself alleged in the complaint that he brought the damaged vehicle to the workshop of Dada Motors - OP-2 on 20.04.2017 means that on the very next day on the date of releasing the vehicle on Supardari.  It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has got insured the vehicle through OP-2 who is agent of the Insurance Company, for that purpose we referred the Insurance Policy Ex.C-3 that the Dada Motor is an agent of the Insurance Company, so if the complainant get insured his vehicle through OP-2 being an agent of the Insurance Company and if this intimation was given to the agent it will presume that the intimation has been given to the Insurance Company through agent then duty casted upon the agent to further intimate the Insurance Company.  Therefore, in this way, there is no negligence on behalf of complainant for delay in intimation because, it was given after getting release the vehicle on Supardari from Court, then the delay in this case is very well explained and therefore the judgment referred by the learned counsel for OP-1, of the Hon’ble National Commission, in Revision Petition No.1356 of 2016 titled as Shimbhu Singh Shekhawat Vs Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, the said judgment is not having identical facts to the facts of the present complaint, therefore the judgment referred by learned counsel for OP-1 is not helpful.
10. Apart from the above, we coming to the quantum of the expenditure incurred upon the vehicle for repair purpose, as per report of the Dada Motor Workshop, the repair bill Ex.C-9 is amounting to Rs.43,367/-.  Whereas, the Surveyor of the OP-1 assessed the said amount to the tune of Rs.25,000/- so there is lot of difference in regard to amount, but the estimate given by Dada Motor is justify because it gives detail of each parts of the damaged vehicle, so with these observations, we considered that the arguments put forth by the complainant in person having much force, therefore, we hold that complainant is entitled for relief claim.
11. In view of the above said detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and same is partly accepted and OP No.1 who is Insurance Company is directed to pay the insurance claim qua the repair of the vehicle i.e. Rs.43,367/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 19.05.2017 till realization and OP-1 further directed to pay compensation for physical and mental harassment to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.
12. Entire compliance be made by the OP No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 30.10.2017                                                        

 

                                     

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President