Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/520/2023

PALLAVI SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV BHARDWAJ

04 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/520/2023
Date of Institution	:	1/11/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/09 /2024

 

Pallavi Sachdeva, W/o Ashish Sachdeva, House No.357, Sachdeva Hopital, Circular Road, Rewari, Haryana-123401.

Complainant

Versus

 

1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. SCO NO-75, First Floor Sector-30-C.

Chandigarh-160019 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2nd address :-

 

SCO NO.36-37, Fourth Floor, Sector-17-A, Chandigarh -160017.

 

2. Krishna Automobiles, Plot No.125, Industrial Area, Phase-l, Chandigarh through its Authorised Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant
	:	Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant  is registered owner of Triumph Rocket III GT motorcycle bearing registration  number HR-36-Y-6666 (hereinafter referred to be as subject motorcycle) and the same was got insured by the complainant from OP No.1 vide policy Annexure C-2  valid w.e.f. 22.4.2023 to 21.4.2024 having IDV of Rs.14,36,400/-  on payment of premium amount of Rs.24,932/- . Copy of RC is annexed as Annexure C-1. Unfortunately,  on 23.4.2023 when the subject motor cycle was  in stationary condition on  roadside near Dharampur, Himachal Pradesh had suddenly fallen down as the surface was uneven as a result of which the motorcycle was damaged badly as the fuel tank and its right hand side mirror got damaged. However, as there was no third party loss, no police complaint was lodged. Immediately the complainant informed the OP No.1 insurance company about the said accident who asked the complainant to bring the subject motorcycle to the premises of OP No.2 for repair. As there was only cosmetic damage to the motorcycle so the husband of the complainant brought it to the premises of OP No.2.  A claim form was duly filled and submitted and the copy of the same is annexed as Annexure C-3.  The OP No.1 has deputed a surveyor who conducted the survey. The  OP No.2 repairer had given estimate of Rs.2,49,778.71 on 26.4.2023  and at that time the OP No.1 had given consent for repair to OP No.2.  Thereafter the subject motorcycle was given to OP No.2  for repair on 10.7.2023,  who after repair had raised a bill of Rs.3,20,867.61  and accordingly the same was sent to OP No.1 for payment.  The copy of estimate and tax invoice is annexed as Annexure C-4 and C-5. The complainant and OP No.2 had duly informed the OP No.1 about the repair of the subject motorcycle but as the OP No.1 did not settle the claim, the complainant No.2 started asking the complainant for parking charges.  Finally the complainant shocked to receive a letter dated 20.9.2023 Annexure C-6  vide which the OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the subject motorcycle was being driven by husband of the complainant  and his license was blocked and he was not authorized to drive the vehicle.  Thereafter the complainant again visited the office of OP No.1  and showed them his driving license Annexure C-7 and the same was valid till 20.9.2027 but the OP No.1  had refused to change its decision and asked the complainant to pay the bill amount herself and take back the subject motorcycle.  As the subject motorcycle is still lying with the OP No.2 who has been demanding parking charges from the complainant and further when it is the case of the complainant that the  subject motorcycle was in stationary condition when the same had fallen on the road and was damaged, there was no question of blockage of driving license of the husband of the complainant and the same otherwise could not  affect  the genuine claim of the complainant. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, cause of action. However it is alleged that in fact at the time of accident the subject motorcycle was being driven by Ashish Sachdeva who was not having valid driving license as the same was blocked  as per Parivahan. On merits it is admitted that the subject motorcycle was insured with the answering OP but alleged that as the subject motorcycle was being driven by Ashish Sachdeva who was not having valid driving license as the same was already blocked as per Parivahan and as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the answering OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, cause of action . However it is admitted that the complainant got the subject motorcycle repaired from the answering OP and the answering OP, has raised tax invoice  Annexure C-5 on 20.7.2023 and as the subject motorcycle had not been taken from the premises of the answering OP  the answering OP is entitled for parking charges at the rate of Rs.50/- per day from 20.8.2023  onwards. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove her case, complainant tendered/proved her evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents. However, as OP No.1 failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 3.5.2024 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed whereas the  counsel for OP No.2 vide his separate statement dated 19.3.2024 stated that no evidence is to be filed on behalf of OP No.2.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is registered owner of the subject motorcycle as is also evident from copy of RC Annexure C-1 and the same was got insured by the complainant from OP No.1 w.e.f. 22.4.2023 to 21.4.2024 as is also evident from Annexure C-2 the policy certificate and subject motorcycle was damaged on 23.4.2023 near Dharampur, which was got repaired from OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has raised a bill of Rs.3,20,867.61 as is also evident from Annexure C-5 the copy of tax invoice and the claim of the complainant was repudiated  by the OP No.1 vide repudiation letter Annexure C-6 on the ground  that  at the time of accident Ashish Sachdeva was driving the subject motorcycle whose driving license was blocked as per Parivahan, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP No.1 is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and OP No.2 has wrongly demanded parking charges from the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if the OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the demand of the OP No.2 is valid for parking charges and the complaint being not maintainable is liable to dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. As per the case of the complainant the subject motorcycle was in stationary condition near Dharampur, Himachal Pradesh  on the road side and the same had fallen due to uneven surface as a result of which the subject motorcycle was badly damaged  on 23.4.2023, which fact has been proved on record by the complainant by tendering her affidavit in which she duly deposed that as there was no third party loss, the matter was not reported to the police. On the other hand the claim of the complainant has been resisted by the OP No.1 on the ground that in fact on the relevant date and time, the subject motorcycle was being driven by Ashish Sachdeva  who met with an accident as a result of which subject motorcycle was damaged and since the aforesaid Ashish Sachdeva was not possessing valid driving license  as the same was blocked by Parivahan, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP No.1. However, there is no iota of evidence on record in order to prove that at the time when the subject motorcycle damaged, the same was being driven by Ashish Sachdeva and the same met with an accident and was not in stationary condition as has been proved by complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has proved the copy of driving license Annexure C-7 of Ashish Sachdeva which clearly indicates that the same was valid  w.e.f. 24.9.1996 to 20.9.2027  and there is no evidence adduced on record that the said license was blocked. Hence, there is no merit in the claim of OP No.1 that the license was blocked at the time of accident.  
   3. In view of the foregoing discussion,  it is safe to hold that the OP No.1 had wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1  and OP No.1 is liable to pay the invoice amount of Rs.3,20,867.61 to the complainant which shall be paid by the complainant to the repairer to get back  the subject motorcycle.
   4. So far as the claim of OP No.2  regarding parking charges is concerned,  the OP No.2 has failed to place on record any agreement vide which the complaint agreed to pay parking charges to it, hence, the OP No.2 is not entitled for any parking charges and it  is liable to return back the subject motorcycle to the complainant on receipt of  payment of repair bill if already not paid by the complainant.  Thus the complaint qua OP No.2 stands disposed of to this extent.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed as under :-
   1. to pay ₹3,20,867.61 to the complainant towards the repair charges of the subject motorcycle alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of repudiation of the claim till onwards
   2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
5. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. The complainant shall collect the subject motorcycle if already not collected from the OP No.2 after payment of repair charges as per Annexure C-5 if already not paid to  OP No.2 without paying any parking charges.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 04/09/2024 mp			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member