Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 312.
Instituted on : 19.05.2017.
Decided on : 09.01.2019.
M/s DECO Vinyl Pvt. Ltd., K.No. 156/8, 45 Km Stone, Village Rohad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, through its Proprietor Sh. Dinesh Gupta.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 323/21, Floor No.2, Delhi Road, Jawahar Market, Rohtak, through its Manager.
2. Toyota, Satyam Auto Serve Private Limited, near Banger Cinema Flyover, Hissar Road, Rohtak, through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravi Kant Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. O.P. Punia, Advocate for OP No. 1.
Sh. B.R. Arora, Advocate for OP No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle INNOVA CRYSTA bearing registration No.HR-13L-3820 bearing Engine No. IGDA024967 and Chassis No. MBJJA8EM3005027470716 which was purchased from the OP No.2 on 05.10.2016 and paid the Invoice retail price Rs.16,17,347.98/- value of the vehicle and Rs.71,905.00/- as insurance premium and road tax price Rs.1,42,990/- through Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and said vehicle was got registered by complainant in his name. The said vehicle was got insured with OP No. 1 vide policy No.TUI/11245384 valid from 05.10.2016 to 04.10.2017. On 13.10.2016 the vehicle in question met with an accident and suffered total damage and FIR No.558 dated 14.10.2016, was lodged in Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh. It is alleged that complainant intimated to the OP No. 1 well within time about the damage of said vehicle and lodged his claim alongwith all required documents. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, OP has not disbursed the claim amount till date. The OP No. 1 vide letter dated 11.05.2017 has declined to pay the total claim amount of vehicle and asked the complainant to settle the claim on net of salvage value. The act and conduct of the OP not to disburse the genuine claim amount to the complainant is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that OP No. 1 be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.19,01,245/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the complainant from the date of its accrual till realization to the complainant alongwith any other relief as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the independent surveyor assessed the loss and after that the independent surveyor Sh. Sunil Kumar Vashisth was appointed for Wreck Valuation of vehicle No.HR-99ZB-9466 who inspected the vehicle that Wreck value was Rs.12,60,600/- and value of Wreck without RC is Rs.1,25,000/-. He also received maximum quotation for salvage buyer, the above mentioned quotation is valid for 20 days only and vehicle is free from superdari, this was on dated 02.03.2017 but the insured/complainant could not get the vehicle free from superdari. The letter again was sent on 25.05.2017 and the complainant was again requested for the same because the quotation of salvage buyer will be cancelled after 31.05.2017 and insurer is free to take suitable decision in the matter. On the basis of non submitting the order for getting the vehicle free from superdari, the claim was settled by the competent authority. The claim was recommended on Net of Salvage loss basis with RC for Rs.5,58,943/- being full and final settlement of the claim subject to : i) Payment to the financer or obtain NOC from the financer, ii) Audit Recovery, if any. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and it is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed qua OP No.1.
3. On the other hand OP No. 2 submitted in its reply that all the matter regarding claim is not concerned by the OP No. 2 and all the facts regarding the claim has to be explain by the OP No. 1. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost qua the answering respondent.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and has closed his evidence on dated 02.02.2018. Ld. Counsel for OP No. 1 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.R/B and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence on dated 12.09.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No. 2 made a statement on 05.10.2018 that reply filed by OP No. 2 be also read as evidence on behalf of OP No. 2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the respondent officials placed on record an affidavit of surveyor Sh. Sunil Vashisth Ex.RW1/A who prepared the survey report dated 02.03.2017 and assessed cost of the damaged vehicle/value of wreck with R.C. Rs.1260000/- and without R.C. Rs.125000/-. The respondent officials also placed on record another survey report which is Ex.R7 fact finding report and Ex.R8 is the Motor survey report. As per this report, the estimated repair value is more than 75% of the IDV of damaged vehicle. The estimated value on repair basis is Rs.1555164/- and assessed value is Rs.1550453/-. Another survey report is also placed on record as Ex.R9, in which surveyor has recommended the IDV calculation in RTI Cover as Rs.1819443/- and after deducting the excess policy clause Rs.2000/-, the net IDV comes to Rs.1817743/-. The surveyor has assessed the expected wreck value(with RC) of the vehicle as Rs.1260000/- on the date of survey and after calculation, the liability of the insurance company comes to Rs.557443/-. This amount has been recommended by the respondent officials which is proved through document Ex.R6 page no.3.
7. The respondent officials placed on record so many survey reports but the basis on which the surveyor came to the conclusion that the wreck value of the vehicle with RC was Rs.1260000/- at the time of survey has not been mentioned anywhere or in any survey report. How they came to the conclusion that the wreck value with RC is Rs.1260000/- whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss in the vehicle more than 75% of IDV and the vehicle is under the total loss. We failed to understand that when the vehicle is in the criteria of total loss and the value of the damage vehicle is assessed by the surveyor, wreck value with RC is Rs.1260000/-, there is a contradictory valuation of the surveyor. In the one hand they are stating that vehicle is in the criteria of total loss but on the other hand, the surveyor and the respondent officials are stating that wreck value of the damaged vehicle is Rs.1260000/-. When the wreck value of vehicle is Rs.1260000/- and repair estimated cost was double the cost of new vehicle as is mentioned in Ex.C16, then how it is possible that someone else would purchase the vehicle in Rs.1260000/- and will spend the amount of Rs.3200000/-(as per estimate given by the repairer) on the repair of alleged vehicle. Hence the criteria of wreck value Rs.1260000/- is baseless.
8. The complainant has also placed on record copy of some emails Ex.C9 to Ex.C17. Through these emails, it has been crystal clear that surveyor admits that the estimated repair cost of the damaged vehicle is approximately Rs.3723000/- and the repair estimated cost is almost double to the cost of new vehicle. This email was sent to the complainant by Ritesh Gupta surveyor and loss assessor. In this email, the total value of vehicle under RTI cover is mentioned as Rs.1738576/- after considering the invoice value as Rs.1617348/-, the IDV value Rs.1536481/- after deducting 5% of the invoice value as per terms and conditions of the policy. The registration fee as per the receipt provided by the complainant assessed as Rs.130190/- and insurance premium as per policy is Rs.71905/-. In this way the total value of the vehicle calculated in RTI Cover comes to Rs.1738576/-. In the present complaint the accident had taken place on dated 13.10.2016 and till date vehicle was not repaired after passing of more than 2 years. The wreck value was assessed by the surveyor in the year 2016 or in the earlier months of 2017 but till date, claim has not been settled and the vehicle could not be repaired which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. It is also on record that as per document Ex.C3, vehicle was financed through Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.
9. The value of the vehicle under RTI cover assessed by the surveyor comes to Rs.1738576/- on the date of loss and in our opinion, the salvage value of damaged vehicle is Rs.300000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim under RTI Cover less salvage i.e. Rs.1738576/- less Rs.300000/- i.e. Rs.1438576/-. It is also on record that In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1438576/-(Rupees fourteen lac thirty eight thousand five hundred seventy six only) alongwith interest 9% @ p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.05.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision. As the vehicle in question is financed through Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and the complainant has not placed on record NOC on the file. Hence the complainant is directed to submit the NOC of the vehicle to the OP No.1 within 15 days, otherwise the payment will be made to the financer by the OP No.1 for payment of outstanding loan amount of the complainant.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
