Haryana

Sonipat

CC/269/2015

VINOD KUMAR S/O JAI BHAGWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH SINGH SAROHA

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.269 of 2015

Instituted on: 10.08.2015                 

Date of order: 26.04.2016

 

Vinod Kumar son of Jai Bhagwan, r/o VPO Murthal, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.The Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at 24, Whites road, Chennai-600014.

2.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Atlas road, near Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.

3.The director, Malwa Motors Sales (P) Ltd., NH-1, 31 KM Stone, GT road, Kundli, Sonepat.

                                       …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.RS Saroha Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.KS Solanki, Adv. for respondent no.1 and 2.

          Sh.Kamal Hooda, Adv.for respondent no.3.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of a car which was purchased by him on 31.12.2014 from respondent no.3 vide temporary registration no.HR-99-RUT-2614 and the same was got insured by respondent no.3 at his own for the period w.e.f. 31.12.2014 to 30.12.2015.  But unfortunately the said car met with an accident on 19.2.2015.  The complainant has informed the respondents no.1 and 2 and they sent a surveyor Dharmender Jain for spot inspection and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/-.  The vehicle was repaired and the complainant has spent Rs.297512/- on the repair of the said vehicle.  The complainant after repair of his vehicle has sent all the bills to the respondents no.1 and 2, but till today, they have not made the payment and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 have appeared and they filed their written statement separately.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted that on the date of alleged accident, the vehicle was without any permanent registration number.  No accident took place on 19.2.2015.    The complainant himself has not supplied the whole information or relevant documents to the respondents no.1 and 2.  Infact it is the respondents no.1 and 2 who have written many letters to the complainant, which were never answered by the complainant.   The temporary registration number of the vehicle had expired on 31.1.2015, whereas the alleged accident took place on 19.2.2015.  So, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and for the same, the respondents no.1 and 2 cannot be held liable in any manner and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The respondent no.3 at the time of purchase of car by the complainant, has arranged to get insured the vehicle from the authorized agent of the respondent no.1 and 2.  Rough estimate was made by the respondent on 30.4.2015 for an amount of Rs.383640/- as repair costs.  The respondent no.3 has charged an amount of Rs.29512/- form the complainant as repair cost of the car.  The vehicle of the complainant was insured with the respondent no.1 and 2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 and thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and compensation from the respondent on.3 and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         In the present complaint, one thing is very clear that the respondent no.3 has charged Rs.2,97,512/- from the complainant as repair cost of the car in question.

         The accident and insurance of the car in question is also not disputed.        

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has argued that the vehicle was running with temporary number and the temporary registration certificate had expired on 31.1.2015 whereas the alleged accident took place on 19.2.2015.  

         Further it is submitted that they have written so many letters to the complainant, but none of the letter was ever answered by the complainant.  The complainant has also failed to provide any correct information or relevant documents to the respondents no.1 and 2.

         During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has placed on record some documents marked as JN/1 to 6.

         As per document JN/1, the temporary certificate of registration was initially issued on 31.12.2014 to 31.1.2015, it was extended from 31.1.2015 to 27.2.2015, and 28.2.2015 to 26.3.2015.  Initially the registration charges has been received by the respondent no.3 from the complainant.  As per document JN/4, the registration charges were deposited by the respondent no.3 with Registering Authority, Sonepat.

         The question for consideration has arisen before this Forum whether the period of temporary registration certificate can be extended or not?

         On this point, the document JN/6 fully supports the case of the complainant and in this document, it is mentioned that:-

An Application for extension of the period of temporary registration shall be made to the Registering Authority specifying the period upto which extension is necessary and shall be accompanied by the necessary documents.

 

         Further the document JN/6 i.e. newspaper cutting also fully supports the case of the complainant that due to server down, the work of registering authority was with-held.

 

         The other plea of the respondent no.1 and 2 is that as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, the name of the said person was even not provided by the complainant. 

 

         The complainant has placed on record the copy of FIR marked as JN/C and in the FIR, the name of the driver is mentioned as Parveen son of Vinod.

 

         The plea of the respondents no.1 and 2 that they have written so many letters to the complainant for supplying the correct information and relevant documents.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that no letters has been placed on record by the respondents no.1 and 2.  Moreover, it has not been mentioned anywhere in the written statement or affidavit that after how many days, the complainant has provided the correct information or supply the relevant documents to the insurance company.

 

         Rather on the contrary, to some extent it is proved that the respondents no.1 and 2 have the knowledge regarding the accident.  They have also deputed the surveyor for spot inspection of the vehicle and the said surveyor must have assess the loss.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that no surveyor report has been placed on record by the respondents no.1 and 2.

         In the present case, as per the respondent no.3, they have charged Rs.2,97,512/- from the complainant as per repair cost of the vehicle.

 

         Now the question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any amount and if so, to what amount?

 

         In the present case, the vehicle of the complainant was only 50 days old as it was purchased on 31.12.2014 and it met with an accident on 19.2.2015.  So, in our view, if 10% depreciation is made and cost of plastic parts is deducted and after less excess clause from the amount of Rs.2,97,512/-, then in our view, Rs.2,40,000/- would be an adequate amount to be granted to the complainant in lumpsum from the respondents no.1 and 2.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 2 insurance company to make the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.two lac forty thousand) in lumpsum to the complainant, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

        With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands partly allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                     (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF                     President

    SNP                           DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 26.04.2016