Haryana

Ambala

CC/136/2018

M/s Nanotech Chemical Brothers Pvt ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII Co ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  136 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  01.05.2018

                                                          Date of decision   :  28.03.2019

 

 

M/s Nanotech Chemical Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Village Mangarh Post Office Kohra, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorised Signatory Ramesh Kashyap.

 

……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd through its Branch Manager,  Bal Bhawan Road, Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City-134003.

 

….…. Opposite Party

  

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

Coram:       Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

.

                            

Present:       Sh. Satpal Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Dev Batra, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this compliant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party(hereinafter referred to as ‘Op’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.76,566/-, being the claim amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the claim till its realization.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- for arranging another vehicle, during the period from 10.7.2017 to 05.09.2017.
3. To pay of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. 
4. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

Or

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

 

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of Vento Car No.PB-10-DD-3841, which was comprehensively insured with the OP for the last many years. The above mentioned vehicle of complainant was insured for a period from 18.04.2017 to 17.04.2018 under policy no.1101023117P101213984. During the subsistence of the above said insurance policy, the said car was extensively damaged in a road accident on 07.07.2017 at about 9:30 PM near Panipat. After accident the vehicle was brought to Ambala as the same was insured with the OP office, situated at Ambala. On 10.07.2017, the car was taken to the authorized workshop of Volkswagan i.e. Velocity Automotives (P) Ltd, situated at GT Road Ambala City, who intimated the OP regarding the accident. At the time of taking the above said insurance policy, the OP assured that as the policy being cash-less and in case of any loss to the vehicle, the repair bills shall be paid in cash directly to the workshop and nothing was to be paid by the insured. The Velocity Automotives Pvt. Ltd. repaired the said car but did not give the delivery, for non release of the repair charges by the OP and the vehicle remained lying there in the workshop for the period from 10.07.2017 to 05.09.2017. The workshop issued the bill of Rs.78,129/- on 01.9.2017 and approximately after waiting for two months, the complainant made the payment of Rs. 76,566/- to the said workshop on 05.09.2017 through NEFT against the bill amount  of Rs. 78,129/-.  Complainant lodged the claim with the OP alongwith all the necessary papers/documents of the said vehicle. Accordingly, surveyor was appointed by the OP to assess the loss. After getting all the formalities completed, OP did not make the payment of the repair bills. The complainant several times requested the OP to release his claim but OP remained putting of the request of complainant on one pretext or the other. Therefore, it is clear case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous and no jurisdiction.  On merits it is stated that as per investigator, the claim intimation letter was signed by one Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, alleged to be the driver of the vehicle and not by the insured. Motor Claim Form was signed by Mr. Vineet Adlakha as proprietor of M/s Nanotech Chemical Brothers Pvt Ltd. But as a matter of fact Mr. Vineet Adlakha is not the proprietor of M/s Nanotech Chemical Brothers Pvt. Ltd., as the same is being managed by the Director only. Investigator Sh. R.K.Bhola(Prop) M/s  Kumar Raj Associates (Surveyors & Loss assessors) in his report dated 21.8.2015 has stated that Mr. Vineet Adlakha had purchased the insured car from M/s Nanotech Chemical Brothers Pvt Ltd and has not got transferred the said on his name till the time of accident and he has not insurable interest on the vehicle and has suggested to repudiate the claim. The present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP, tendered affidavits, Annexure R/A to R/C along with documents, Annexure R-1 to R-15 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                          From the perusal of the policy document Annexure C-2, it is evident that the complainant got insured the car in question with the OP for the period from 18.04.2017 to 17.04.2018. It is not disputed that during the subsistence of the policy, the said car met with an accident on 07.07.2017. From the certificate of Registration, Annexure C-1,  it is evident that the car in question was registered in the name of the complainant. In the case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2018) ACJ Page 677(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 has provided in the  first part of the Section 2(30) that  owner would be the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. Since in the present case, at the time of accident the car in question was registered in the name of the complainant and was duly insured with the OP, therefore, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.(Supra), the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by the it. Now, the question which arises for consideration  is what should be the quantum of indemnification. The plea of the complainant is that it had spent Rs. 78,129.44 for repairs of the vehicle. However, from the perusal of the surveyor  report, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the loss the tune of Rs. 31,141/- after considering the estimate given by the complainant and after making necessary deductions in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.  The report of the surveyor is well explained and detailed one. The said surveyor report has not been rebutted by the complainant. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills, (2000) 10 SCCC 19(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held that surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value and cannot be displaced unless it is contradicted by credible evidence to the contrary. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that OP is liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs. 31,141/-, as assessed by the surveyor. It may be stated here that no documents regarding spending of amount of Rs. 50,000/-, for arranging  another vehicle  during the period from 10.07.2017 to 05.09.2017, has been placed on record by the complainant, therefore, the prayer made for issuance of direction to the OP for payment of Rs.50,000/- cannot be accepted. Since the complainant is a juristic person, therefore, it is not entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, as sought for by the complainant.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs. 31,141/- alongwith interest  @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 04.05.2018 till its realization.
2. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigations expenses.

 

The Op is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 31,141/- for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :28.03.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member             President