Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/31/2018

Harvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vineet Kumar Chopra

12 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :         31 of 2018

Date of Institution                             :         08.06.2018

Date of Decision                     :         12.02.2019

Harvinder Singh S/o Rattan Singh, R/o Mohalla Pahar Singh, Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.                                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.1, Post Box No.76, 19 G.T. Road, Jalandhar – 144001.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai, 600014, IRDA Regn. No. 545.
3. Jasjeet Singh Hora and Company, Surveyor and Loss Assessors, SCF 190, Gujral Nagar, Opposite Amarjit CT Scan, Jalandhar City.
4. Cargo Motors Private Limited, Chandigarh Road, Near Langroya Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.
5. Kosmo Motors, G.T. Road, Near DPS, Jalandhar.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.V.K. Chopra, Advocate

For Op No.1&2             :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate

For Op No.3                            :         Ex parte

For OP-4                        :         Sh.Gulshan Rana, Advocate

For OP-5                        :         Sh.Rajat Chopra, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.   Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that he purchased a car Tata Indigo CS Diesel LX, date of MFG is 12/2014, bearing Engine No.475IDT14PVYP52499, Chassis No.MAT607341EPP32486, Class Tourist, bearing Registration No.PB-01-A-5361 on 01.01.2015 from OP-4 having gate pass No.2019 vide invoice dated 31.12.2014.  At the time of purchasing aforesaid vehicle from OP-4 offered three consecutive insurance and at the time of delivery of vehicle first insurance was issued by OP-1 for the period of 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 and after expiry it was renewed from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016.  The complainant got car hypothecated from Cholamandlam Invests and Fin Company Limited with installment of Rs.12,000/- per month.  The complainant has cleared hypothecation and got No Objection Certificate dated 26.02.2018 and hypothecation was terminated. Complainant also got contract carriage permit valid till 01.03.2020, authorization for tourist permit or national permit from 02.03.2016 to 01.03.2017, had also paid tax of vehicle which was paid from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 and pollution is valid from 04.10.2016 to 03.04.2017.  These documents shows that the complainant was having his entire documents valid at the time of accident of vehicle.  Complainant met with an accident at home and slipped and he is having screws in his spinal cord and he is unable to sit for hours together.  So he hired Sukhvir Singh as driver to run vehicle to earn his livelihood as complainant is unable to drive his car/vehicle.  On the night of 30.11.2016/01.12.2016, the said vehicle driven by Sukhvir Singh met with an accident at Unna and DDR No.5 dated 01.12.2016 registered at Police Post Mehatpur, District Unna (HP).  After that accident, driver brought the vehicle from Unna to OP-5 for repair.  Intimation was also given to OP-5 and OP-3 – surveyor who conducted the survey and complainant filled claim form and also given all original related documents to surveyor to get cashless facility.  Vide reminder dated 16.02.2017 and 02.03.2017, OP-5 demanded a clarification that person holding driving licence for goods vehicle can drive passenger (transport) vehicle and in reply clarification certificate issued by DTO Jalandhar dated 15.03.2017 given to OP-3.  After that vehicle remained in the premises of OP-5 for almost 6 months, but OP-3 and OP-1 did not take any necessary action for cashless repair.  Complainant requested the OPs many times and when nothing was heard by OPs, complainant took car to open market by settling account with OP-5 regarding parking fee.  It was declared by local denter i.e. R.K. Denter Dhilwan Road Rama Mandi Jalandhar that car is of total loss and car is still lying in the premises of said denter.  Earlier, complainant has filed complaint on similar ground and vide order dated 09.04.2018 OPs given one month time to settle claim but they did not hear him and denied the claim stating that insurance is not cashless. Lastly, it is prayed that Ops be directed to refund Rs.4,25,947/- as per second/renewed insurance alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of accident till realization and Rs.1,00,000/- claimed for mental harassment and Rs.4,00,000/- claimed for damages of income to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- claimed as cost of litigation.               
2. Upon notice, OPs No.1&2 appeared through counsel and filed written version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant has no locus standi. This Forum has got no jurisdiction.  Complainant has not come with cleans hands.  Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy and complainant did not supply the required documents to surveyor as well as OP-1 in spite of letter dated 24.04.2018, 16.05.2018 and 28.05.2018.  Insured has not purchased cashless policy.  On merits, purchase of insurance policy is not in dispute but this is not a cashless policy from OP-4.  Answering OP deputed Sh.Jasjit Singh Hora and company for assessment of loss but complainant did not supply the document to surveyor as required by him.  On 24.04.2018, OP-1 issued letter to complainant to complete formalities as required by surveyor and produce the vehicle alongwith with salvage so that surveyor may take final photographs of repaired vehicle and also requested to complainant to submit original documents, R.C. D.L. route permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle, bills of the repair and replacement along with receipt for speedy settlement of claim as per terms and conditions of policy but complainant not fulfilled the formalities as required.  This Forum has also directed the insurance company to settle the claim within 30 days but complainant has not submitted the above said documents. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.   
3. Op No.3 has failed to appear and ultimately, the OP-3 was proceeded  against ex parte vide order dated 17.07.2018. 
4. OP-4 has also appeared through counsel and filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant has no cause of action.  Complainant has unnecessarily dragged OP-4.  The act and conduct of complainant debars from filing of complaint.  Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  OP-1 sold the car Tata Indigo CS Diesel LX to complainant in proper and good working conditions.  At the time of purchase of said car complainant himself opted for insurance with Op No.1&2.  There was no any fault in vehicle nor there is any deficiency in consumer services on part of answering OP.  This Forum has no jurisdiction and competent jurisdiction lies with District Consumer Forum, Jalandhar.  Complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties.  On merits, each and every averments of complaint are empathically denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. OP-5 has appeared through counsel and filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant has no locus standi to file present complaint.  This Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide this complain, as the claim was for the taxi, which is being used for the commercial purposes.  One of representative of complainant came alongwith the accidental car to answering OP through recovery service. The estimate was prepared by answering OP.  The claim was intimated to insurance company through call center by answering OP.  After the surveyor was appointed by Insurance Company and survey was conducted by the surveyor. But answering OP received a call from the representative of Insurance company regarding refusal of claim on the ground of driving licence which is valid of LMV-GV, not for the LTC (Light Transport Vehicle). OP informed complainant that your claim is refused by insurance company and you need to deposit the 50% of estimated loss, so that the repair of the work can be started.  But complainant refused to deposit the same and threatened the answering OP that complainant will harass the OP by indulging/implicating the answering OP in false and frivolous case.  On merits, it is admitted that representative brought the car with recovery service from where the answering OP cannot comment on this.  The answering OP is always ready and willing to repair the car but after depositing 50% of the estimated loss.  Each and every averments of complaint are empathically denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.   
6. To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1, alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-33 and closed the evidence. OP No.1&2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sneh Bhagat Ex.OP1/A alongwith affidavit of Jasjeet Singh Hora Ex.OP1/B, copy of letter dated 24.04.2018 Ex.OP-1, copy of letter dated 16.05.2018 Ex.OP-2, copy of letter dated 28.05.2018 Ex.OP-3, copy of reminder dated 16.02.2017 Ex.OP-4. Copy of reminder dated 02.03.2017 Ex.OP-5 and then closed the evidence. Sh.I.D. Sharma, authorized signatory of OP-4 tendered his affidavit as Ex.OP4/A and closed the evidence.  Sh.Sanjay Tikko, G.M. of OP-5 has tendered his affidavit as Ex.OP5/A and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
8. During arguments the contentions of counsel for complainant are similar to its respective pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same.
9. In the instant case, there is no denial that car in question met with an accident and it is lying with OP No.5 for repair.  Although, jurisdiction of this Forum has been challenged by the opposite party No.4, but perusal of the record shows that earlier complaint filed by the complainant has been disposed off by this Forum on 09.04.2018 vide order Ex.C-20. Moreover, the sale invoice Ex.C-1 shows that it was issued by Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar.  But the complainant in para No.2 of the complaint averred that he purchased the car from opposite party No.4 at Nawanshahr.  He also produced document Ex.C-2, which has been issued by M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Near Langroya, Nawanshahr.  Gate Pass number mentioned in the said document is 2019 dated 01.01.2015.  It appears that on 31.12.2014 at 8.23.15PM Cargo Motors Jalandhar got completed all the formalities regarding delivery of the vehicle but the vehicle was delivered on 01.01.2015 at Nawanshahr, because engine number and chassis number mentioned in both the documents are same.  It cannot be said that Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. At Jalandhar sold the vehicle bearing chassis No.MAT607341EPP32486 Engine Number 4751DT14PVYP on 31.12.2018 at 8:23:15 PM and same engine number and chassis number was sold and out passed on 01.01.2015 by their office at Nawanshahr.  Hence, when the gate pass number is mentioned in the document Ex.C-2, it is apparent that delivery of the vehicle was given at Nawanshahr not at Jalandhar.  Moreover, to rebut this document, opposite party has not produced any document that the car was out gated at Jalandhar.
10. Second point for consideration is that when the vehicle is released by the Dealer/Company to an individual or any purchaser, it is delivered/out gated only after getting the insurance done.  When the vehicle is delivered at Nawanshahr, it might have been insured by the persons/employee of the OP- Insurance Company sitting in the office of Cargo Motors, Chandigarh Road, Near Langroya, Nawanshahr but they mentioned the dealer name as Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar.  Document Ex.C-3, certificate – cum – policy schedule shows the period of insurance from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015.  On 01.01.2015, vehicle in question was at Nawanshahr when delivered.  Mentioning of dealer name as Cargo Motors Jalandhar by the employees of the OP-Insurance Company shows that such like insurance companies and motor vehicle dealers are making befool of general public by opening their offices in all cities but issuing the documents of other offices and playing mischief with innocent people.
11. It appears that M/s Cargo Motors for meting the target of sale of the vehicle of Model 2014 might have given offer of three free Insurance Policies for three years as alleged by the complainant and policy might have been issued at Nawanshahr by putting the stamp of Jalandhar Office. Hence, jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint cannot be outset by mischievous acts of the opposite parties.
12. Mere ground taken by the opposite parties No.1&2 for rejection of the claim is that driving licence of Sh.Sukhvir Singh, driver was not valid but perusal of document Ex.C-14 i.e. copy of DL reveals that it is valid (Transport) till 30.05.2019 and valid till (Non-Transport) 11.06.2032 and has been issued on 15.01.2015. Ex.C-19, a certificate issued by the District Transport Officer, Jalandhar has been produced by the complainant certifying that licence issued to Sh.Sukhvir Singh is for LMV GV and LTC and is genuine one as per their record.  As such, it is apparently proved that license of the driver is genuine and OP-Insurance Company was not justified in raising such objection for denying the claim of the complainant.
13. Another plea taken by the OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company is that complainant has not submitted the documents as demanded by them.  Whereas, the complainant is alleging that he has already supplied all the documents to the Surveyor and he had sent reply Ex.C-25 to letter Ex.C-24. The complainant has produced document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 relating to the vehicle in question and copies of the same already been supplied to opposite party.  As such, OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company is restrained from taking plea of non-supply of documents.
14. Vehicle met with an accident on the night of 30.11.2016/01.12.2016 and vehicle was brought to Kosmo Motors, Jalandhar on 01.12.2016.  Surveyor vide letter dated 11.02.2017 demanded clarification of licence of driver and same was also submitted.  But it is astonished to hear that after filing of first complaint and its order dated 09.04.2018, OP again on 24.04.2018 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than one year and three months asked the complainant to produce the vehicle.  It is no understood why the surveyor of OP not examined the vehicle parked at workshop of authorized dealer of OP-5 – Kosmo Motors when the claim was lodged.  Rather, raised objection regarding DL of the driver.  When complainant after paying parking charges removed the vehicle and now OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company is asking for inspection of the vehicle.  This all shows that callous approach of OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company for assessing the loss and adopting delaying tactics in paying the claim.
15. From all discussion, it is apparent that OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company is deficient in providing proper services for paying claim to complainant.  Seeing all the facts and circumstances of the case and sequel to above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company is directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant for the loss suffered by him on the basis of documents supplied by him to OP No.1&2 - Insurance Company in the court proceedings alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of lodging of claim.  Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of receipt of this order.  OP No.1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and loss of earning and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
16.  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 29.01.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.            
17. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
18. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:  12.02.2019

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (Kuljit Singh)

Member                         President