Haryana

Karnal

CC/502/2020

Mr. Simranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

09 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 502 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.10.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:09.05.2023

 

Mr. Simranjeet Singh, aged 34 years, Director of M/s Seven Colors Motion Pvt. Ltd. House no.1089, New Housing board Colony, Sector-13, Karnal. (Aadhar no.6632 7678 3612)

                                                                          …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, G.T. Road, Karnal.

 

2.     M/s Globe Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Globe Toyota), G.T. Road, near Haryana Police Academy, (HAP) Madhuban, G.T. Road, Karnal through its General Manager/ Authorized person.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Virender Adlakha, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Surender Kumar, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of car bearing registration no.HR-05/AV-4329 (Toyota Innova) (crystal 2.4 V), model 2017 and the same was insured with the OP no.1, vide policy no.TUI/11291071, valid from 15.07.2017 to 14.07.2018. The policy was comprehensive/package with zero dept. The insured declared value of the car was Rs.16,29,021/-. The policy was taken at Karnal from the broker of the OP no.2 from their portal kept in the premises of OP no.2. The premium of Rs.75096/- was paid at Karnal for generating the aforesaid policy. The said car was used by complainant for his personal use and necessary for earning his livelihood.

2.             On 23.02.2018 at about 2.45 a.m., the car met with an accident in the area of Bherakuchi, Khetri on 37NH way, which falls within the jurisdiction of P.S. khetri, District Kamrup (M) Assam. At the time of accident, Mr. Gaurav Arora son of Shri Dharam Pal Arora was driving the said vehicle, who died in the said accident due to the injuries received in this accident. In the said accident the abovesaid vehicle was totally damaged.  Beside Gaurav Arora one Ashish Sharma was also traveling in the said vehicle. The matter was reported to the local police and DDR dated 23.02.2018 was recorded with the police of Police Station Khetri, District Kamrup (Assam) regarding the said accident. The matter was brought into the knowledge of OP no.1, who told the complainant to bring the car at Karnal. Then, the vehicle was brought to Karnal from the place of accident with the help of towing crane to the workshop of OP no.2 on 08.04.2018, a sum of Rs.48000/-were paid to the crane owner. The complainant informed the OP no.1 and on receipt of intimation, OP appointed a surveyor, who inspected the vehicle in the premises of OP no.2, necessary survey was conducted. Photographs were taken. The complainant submitted the claim form and other relevant documents as demanded by the official of the OPs. It is further averred that the wallet (purse) containing driving licence and other documents of Gaurav Arora (since deceased) were misplaced at the place of accident. Thereafter, a claim was filed by the L.R. of Gaurav Arora before the MACT, Karnal.

3.             During the proceedings of the case, the copy of driving licence of Gaurav Arora was submitted before the Tribunal at Karnal, after obtaining the copy of the same, the complainant also submitted the said copy of the driving licence to the OPs. After inspecting the car, the official of the OP no.1 did not respond to the request of the complainant, since the car was total loss and beyond repair, however, the official of the OP no.1 did not do any needful. Thereafter, complainant made many request to the OPs for settlement of the claim, but despite all this, OP no.1 did not settle the claim of the said car of complainant intentionally and deliberately. The complainant also gave written representation to the OPs, vide registered letter dated 21.09.2020 but no response given by the OPs. The car is still lying in the workshop of OP no.2, due to the long delay on the part of the OP no.1 for settling the O.D. Claim of the car, the salvage of the car is totally junk. The OP no.2 is also demanding Rs.100/- per day for parking charges from the complainant as per letter dated 11.12.2018. Despite all this, the official of the OP no.1 did not respond to the genuine request of complainant. The O.D. claim of the car neither been settled nor repudiated till today by the officials of the OP no.1, even no written communication has been given to the complainant regarding the fate of the car. Due to the non-settlement of the claim on the part of the OP no.1, the complainant has suffered great mental pain, agony as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; limitation; jurisdiction; mis joinder and non-joinder of parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the insurance of vehicle in question with OP no.1 is concerned and the insurance policy purchased by the complainant from broker of Toyota Tsusho Insurance Broker I Pvt. (Ltd.) (TTIB) from the portal of Toyota office. The complainant has not made a party broker, which is very much necessary and proper party for the proper disposal of the present complaint. But the complainant has never intimated the OP no.1 regarding the alleged accident and damaging the vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant has violated the term and condition no.1 of the insurance policy. Moreover, complainant has not lodged any claim regarding the said vehicle with the office of OP no.1 till date. Thus, the question of settling and repudiating the claim by the OP no.1 does not arise. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question has been purchased by the complainant for business/commercial purpose to earn more profit, not for livelihood, which is fully evident from the title of the complaint as well as RC and Insurance, where it has been clearly mentioned that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of M/s Seven Colors Motion Private Limited, therefore, complainant is not consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that during the investigation, A U.D. case was registered vide Khetri P.S. U.D. case no.06/18 dated 02.04.2018 delayed by one month and six days inclusion with the police only with a view to get compensation from the insurance company. It is wrong and denied that the matter was brought into the knowledge of the OP. It is also denied that OP no.1 told the complainant to bring the car at Karnal. There is no intimation to OP no.1 regarding the loss of vehicle and OP appointed the surveyor for inspection of the vehicle in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has no concern with the OP and OP has no role to play in non-settlement of the insurance claim. It is further pleaded that complainant has intentionally concealed the date on which he visited the dealership of OP for first time after the alleged accident of the vehicle in question. Complainant prayed for payment of IDV of vehicle in question and not prayed for its repair which shows complainant has no concern with the insurance company of the vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose with a purpose of earning profits/additional income and not for livelihood, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pleaded that complainant has failed to array Toyota Tsusho Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. being the Insurance Broker as one of the party and same is evident from the copy of insurance policy. It is further pleaded the vehicle in question dropped through crane to the dealership of the OP on 04.8.2018. The crane operator did not provide any receiving sheet.

6.             On 09.04.2018, the OP as per routine practice prepared the rough estimate for the repair of the aforesaid vehicle. It is further pleaded that the owner of the vehicle in question did not visit the OP for providing details of accident and other documents related thereto as required by the insurance company. The OP from online portal maintained by the manufacturer of the vehicle traced the details and contact number of the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, various calls and messages were dropped to the complainant at his registered mobile number and request was made to complainant to send the various documents but complainant neither responded to the message nor visited the OP. After waiting sufficient long time, OP was forced to write a letter to the SHO of Local Police Station at Karnal informing him that the vehicle in question is lying in accidental condition in their dealership and registered owner is not coming to dealership and providing various documents. On the same day a letter was issued to the complainant and was dispatched through registered post to the complainant requesting him to visit the dealership of the OP and to provide various documents.

7.             Complainant visited to the OP on 02.08.2018 and handed over the insurance policy, registration certificate, police report and claim form but did not handed over the copy of driving licence which was mandatory for intimation/lodging of insurance claim on TTIB portal. Complainant also signed the claim form on the same. Further, complainant was apprised that the insurance policy handed over by him qua vehicle in question has been expired on 14.07.2018 and the insurance company would require its renewal otherwise his claim can be rejected on this ground but complainant refused for the renewed policy and directed the OP to proceed with the same policy and assured to hand over the copy of driving licence at later stage.  It is further pleaded various calls were made to the complainant either to give approval to get repair the vehicle on paid basis as no approval was made from insurance company or to lift up the vehicle in question from the dealership of OP but till date OP has neither received any approval from the concerned insurance company nor the complainant has given any approval to start the repair work on paid basis. Therefore, the vehicle in question is lying parked at the dealership of the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of cheque Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of police report Ex.C4, copy of letters dated 11.12.2018 and 21.09.2020 Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7, courier receipt Ex.C8, invoice Ex.C9, copy of resolution dated 26.10.2020 Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 24.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

10.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kamal, Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of RC Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 16.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence copy of insurance certificate Ex.OP2/1, copy of detail dated 08.04.2018 Ex.OP2/2, copy of estimate Ex.OP2/3, receipt dated 13.06.2018 Ex.OP2/4, copy of letter dated 25.07.2018 Ex.OP2/5, postal receipt Ex.OP2/6, letter dated 25.07.2018 Ex.OP2/7, postal receipt Ex.OP2/8, copy of letter dated 02.08.2018 Ex.OP2/9, messages dated 04.08.2018, 06.08.2018, 16.08.2018, 08.10.2018 Ex.OP2/10 to Ex.OP2/13, copy of letter dated 19.09.2020 Ex.OP2/14, postal receipt dated 19.09.2020 Ex.OP2/15, copy of letter dated 21.09.2020 Ex.OP2/16 and closed the evidence on 02.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

12.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

13.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant insured his vehicle (Toyota Innova) with the OP no.1 for the sum insured of the vehicle was Rs.16,29,021/-. The policy was valid from 15.07.2017 to 14.07.2018. On 23.02.2018 the said vehicle met with an accident and in the said accident the vehicle was totally damaged.  The intimation in this regard was sent to the OP no.1. The vehicle was brought to Karnal from the place of accident with the help of towing crane to the workshop of OP no.2 on 08.04.2018. The complainant submitted the claim form and other relevant documents and also requested the OP no.1 to settle the claim, but  OP no.1 neither settled nor repudiated the claim of complainant till today and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

14.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has never intimated the OP no.1 regarding the alleged accident and damaging the vehicle. He further argued that complainant has not lodged any claim regarding the said vehicle with the office of OP no.1 till date. Thus, the question of settling and repudiating the claim by the OP no.1 does not arise, so the present complaint is premature. He further argued that the vehicle in question has been purchased by the complainant for business/commercial purpose to earn more profit, not for livelihood, which is fully evident from the title of the complaint as well as RC and Insurance, where it has been clearly mentioned that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of M/s Seven Colors Motion Private Limited, therefore, complainant is not consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

15.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has no concern with the OP and OP has no role to play in non-settlement of the insurance claim. He further argued that vehicle in question has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act. He further argued that complainant has failed to array Toyota Tsusho Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. being the Insurance Broker as one of the party He further argued that on 02.08.2018, complainant handed over the insurance policy, registration certificate, police report and claim form but did not handed over the copy of driving licence which was mandatory for intimation/lodging of insurance claim on TTIB portal. He further argued that till date OP has neither received any approval from the concerned insurance company nor the complainant has given any approval to start the repair work on paid basis. The vehicle in question is lying parked at the workshop OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

16.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

17.           Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was insured with the OP no.1 and met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

18.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide, whether the present complaint is pre-mature or not?

19.           As per version of the OP no.1, complainant has never intimated the OP no.1 regarding the alleged accident and damaging the vehicle and has also not submitted the claim with the OP till date and without submission of the claim, it cannot be decided whether same is payable or not. As per the version of the complainant, he has submitted the claim alongwith required documents with the OP. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. If the complainant had submitted the claim with the OP and supplied the required documents, he would have placed on file the copies of the said documents. Complainant has also failed to disclose date and month for submission of the claim form with the OP. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainant has not submitted the claim with the OP no.1.  Hence, in view of the above, at this stage, the present complaint is premature.

20.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed off with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim alongwith documents as required by the OP no.1 and after submitting the same, OP no.1 is hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days on receipt of the claim form alongwith required documents. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:09.05.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member