Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/268

M/s Shree Ram Dass Rice & Grain Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Gupta Adv.

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:268 dated31.05.2019.                                                Date of decision: 19.04.2023.

M/s. Shree Ram Das Rice & Gen. Mills, Adiana Road, Machhiwara, District Ludhiana through its Partner Vijay Kumar Sood son of Sh. Hari Chand Sood.                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Near HDFC Bank, Opposite Bus Stand, Khanna, District Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager.
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Near HDFC Bank, Opposite Bus Stand, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. United India Insurance Co. Limited having its head office and registered office United India Insurance Co. Limited, 24, Whites Road, Chennai, through its Chief Manager.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. M.R. Saluja, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant firm was initially a partnership concern of Sh. Vijay Kumar Soodand Anil Sood duly registered under Indian Partnership Act. The complainant firm purchased one car make Hyundai i-20 bearing registration No.PB-43D-0210 for personal and self usage of its partner Vijay Kumar Sood. Registration certificate was issued in the name of the complainant firm. The said car was fully insured from the opposite parties vide policy No.20060331168104656284 from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2017 by paying the premium. The complainant stated that the car met with an accident on 03.06.2017 at 2.00 PM on Machhiwara-Samrala Road. After the accident, the car was duped with authorized dealer for its repair by incurring toeing charges of Rs.5000/- and the opposite parties were telephonically intimated on the same day and it was conveyed by writing on 07.06.2017. The complainant lodged the claim and completed all the documents for the claim. The opposite parties have intentionally delayed the claim on one pretext or the other. Firstly, the opposite parties raised objection that Vijay Kumar Sood partner of the complainant firm is aged 70 years so the claim cannot be allowed. According to the complainant, there is no such provision under the Motor Vehicle Act which bar the person having an age of 70 years for the driving. Vijay Kumar Sood has a valid driving license and same was supplied to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appointed a surveyor and estimated cost of the repair was about Rs.3,90,000/- whereas IDV of the car is Rs.2,70,000/- which shows that the vehicle is totally damaged and with such huge amount repair is not possible. As per the policy, the opposite parties have to pay the IDV value which is less than the estimated cost of repair. The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim in question bearing No.2006033117C04165001 vide its letter dated 09.04.2018 by wrongly stating that the car has not been got repaired or that claim amount did not qualify for CTL. The vehicle is covered under the total loss category but the opposite parties appointed surveyor who are yes man of the opposite parties and not allowing the claim on flimsy grounds. The complainant requested the opposite parties through emails regularly but they have not released the claim amount and this amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant has suffered great mental tension, pain, agony, loss of time, harassment for which the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- besides claim amount. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 09.07.2018 upon the opposite parties through counsel Sh. VinayKashyap, Advocate but with no result. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction tot eh opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the extent of insured declared value by treating the car as total damage along with interest @12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement in which they assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of cause of action; Vijay Kumar Sood is not partner of the complainant concern and is not competent to file the present complaint etc. The opposite parties stated that they appointed  surveyor, loss assessor and valuer namely U.P.S. Sachdeva& Company who assessed estimated loss to the tune of Rs.1,79,000/- vide report dated 01.03.2018. The surveyor estimated the loss on estimation and imagination and the actual loss was not assessed because the complainant did not get the insured car repaired and did not file repair bills in spite of asking by them verbally as well as through written letters dated 14.11.2017 and 30.01.2018. The complainant is not entitled to any claim as it has not got the car repaired. The claim of the complainant was already repudiated and he was informed vide letter dated 16.03.2018. According to the opposite parties, the complainant was not actually interested to get his car repaired as he was definite that he is not entitled to any claim and thus he was not interested to get the car repaired and did not supply the bills of repair. The insured was in question was of Model/year 2010 at the time of insurance i.e. in the year 2016 and the market price has been reduced at the rate of 40% or 50% from the assessed amount on account of change in the model of the car in question. Further the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has wrongly and falsely mentioned that one surveyor estimated loss of Rs.3,90,000/-. However, they have not appointed any such surveyor nor any surveyor assessed loss of Rs.3,90,000/-. The final assessment cannot be made by any surveyor due to want of the actual bills of repair. The complainant is not entitled to any claim because Vijay Kumar Sood was driving the car in question having age of more than 70 years. The opposite parties alleged that the complainant did not pay any Rs.5000/- as toeing charges to anybody.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency in service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of the claim, Sh. Vijay Kumar Sood, Partner of the complainant the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Aadhar card of Vijay Kumar, Ex. C2 is the copy of partnership deed dated 01.04.2003, Ex. C3 is the copy of partnership deed dated 31.12.2014, Ex. C4 is the copy of form A register of firms, Ex. C5 is the copy of Form C acknowledgement of registration of firms, Ex. C6 is the copy of registration certificate, Ex. C7 is the copy of driving licence of Vijay Kumar, Ex. C8 to Ex. C11 are the photographs, Ex. C12 is the letter dated 09.04.2018, Ex. C13 is the legal notice dated 09.07.2018, Ex. C13/A is the postal receipt, Ex. C14 is the copy of private car package policy and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA as well as affidavit Ex. R7 of Ms. LipiMoitra, Assistant Manager of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of motor final survey report dated 01.03.2018, Ex. R2 and Ex. R3 are the copies of letters dated 14.11.2017 and 30.01.2018 respectively, Ex. R4 is the copy of email dated 09.03.2018, Ex. R5 is the copy of private car package policy, Ex. R6 is the copy of claim closer letter dated 16.03.2018, Ex. RX copy of certificate of the complainant firm and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                It is a proven fact that the complainant firm is the owner of a car make Hyundai i20 bearing registration No.PB-43D-0210Model 2010. The complainant purchased a private car package policy Ex. C14=Ex. R5  w.e.f. 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2017 having its IDV of the vehicle as Rs.2,70,000/-. On 03.06.2017, at about 02.00 PM in the area of Machhiwara-Samrala Road, an accident of the vehicle took place and it was towed for its repair to the authorized service centre by incurring a sum of Rs.5000/- as toeing charges. Intimation of accident was sent to the opposite parties on 07.06.2017 and the complainant lodged claim of Rs.3,90,000/- and submitted photographs Ex. C8 to Ex. C11 as wel. Upon receipt of the claim, surveyor U.P.S. Sachdeva& Company was appointed who assessed the loss to be Rs.1,79,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy vide report dated 01.03.2018 Ex. R1. During the course of survey, the surveyor asked the complainant to submit the bills of repair vide letters dated 14.11.2017 and 30.01.2018 Ex. R2 and Ex. R3 respectively. However, the bills of repair were not submitted. Rather on 09.03.2018, email Ex. R4 was sent by the complainant to the opposite parties clearly stating that they do not want to repair this heavily damaged car and again requested the opposite parties to take the vehicle and repair it on their own level as the complainant firm has no funds to repair the same. On 16.03.2018, vide letter Ex. R6, in view of non-submission of documents, the opposite parties initiated the process for closing the claim file. On 09.04.2018 vide letter Ex. C12, the opposite parties intimated the complainant that since the vehicle was not repaired and as the claim amount did not qualify for CTL (constructive total loss-75% of IDV).

7.                Perusal of evidence on record takes this Commission to the conclusion that the complainant has offlate shown disinclination to get the vehicle repair and submit the bills of repair and its payment made to the dealer. It amounts to relinquishment of the claim. On the other hand, the opposite parties had repeatedly issued reminders to the complainant firm to do the needful so that the claim could be settled. As such, apparently there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in settling the claim. However, ends of justice would be served if the complainant is afforded another chance to get the vehicle repaired and to submit the requisite documents to the opposite parties and thereafter, the opposite parties will settle and pay the claim as per report of the surveyor Ex. R1 subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and to submit the requisite documents to the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties will settle and pay the claim as per report of the surveyor Ex. R1 subject to terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

M/s. Shree Ram Dass Rice Vs United India Insurance              CC/19/268

Present:       Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. M.R. Saluja, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and to submit the requisite documents to the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties will settle and pay the claim as per report of the surveyor Ex. R1 subject to terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.