Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 603.
Instituted on : 23.10.2017.
Decided on : 20.06.2019.
Sheela Devi, aged 43 years, wife of Sh. Narender Singh, Resident of H.No. 1804, Sector-2, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Managing Director/Aurhorised Person, Office at Unit 401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai 400059,.
2 Branch Office: Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. 3rd Floor, SCF-55, Sector 6, Main Market, Karnal (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.
3 Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director near CSD Canteen, Sonepat Road, Rohtak, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
4 Karnatka Bank Ltd., Narain Complex, Opposite Neeli Kothi, Near Vodafone Store, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. V.S. Rathi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for OPs No. 1 and 2.
Sh. Aman Saini, Advocate for OP No. 3.
Sh. Satish Khera, Advocate for OP No. 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Polo Highline 1.6 TDI car white color bearing Chassis No. MEXD16608GT082343, Engine No. CWX132186 and bearing registration No. HR-12AC-0618 from the OP No. 3 and got the same insured from OP No. 1 through their branch on 03.10.2016 which was valid till midnight of 02.10.2017 for payment of Rs.22,468/- as premium for the total value of the car which was Rs.8,10,804/-. The OP No. 4 advanced loan for said car and got the same insured from OP No.1. That on 24.07.2017 the car in question met with an accident at Rohtak. Sh. Virender Singh son of Sh. Pyare Lal, Resident of H.No.1804, Sector-2, Rohtak the real younger brother of the husband of the complainant was driving the car. He sustained injuries and informed the insurance company as well as to OP No. 3 who advised to call toll-free number of RSA, then he sought the assistance of RSA (Road Side Assistance) on the next day. The Crain of RSA left the car at workshop of OP No. 3 on 26.07.2017, till then the car was on the spot and was not in a position to drive. The official of the OP No. 3 inspected the vehicle on 27.07.2017. The estimated cost which was apparently seen as Rs.1,30,725/-. The OP No. 3 intimated the claim to the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 issued the claim No. CL 17037639 and deputed Mr. Hemant Sharma as surveyor who surveyed the vehicle on 31.07.2017. That after replacing the radiator, condenser, fan, temperature sensor etc., it was found that the engine was seized. The OP No. 3 on the request of petitioner send supplementary estimate of Base Engine Assembly amounting Rs.2,87,800/- to OP No. 1 by Email. The surveyor again inspected and rejected the claim of base engine with the remarks that there is no external/accidental impact on engine hence there is no liability of insurer. The claim of Rs.1,30,000/- is allowed but is not paid by the OP No.1 till today. That due to the above said illegal act of OPs No. 1 and 2, the complainant is suffering a lot at the hands of OPs No. 1 and 2. There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 and 2. As such, it is prayed that OPs No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to pay Rs.2,87,800/- as compensation for repair of the engine and Rs.1,75,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. It is further prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the already allowed claim of Rs.1,30,000/- with 12% interest and OP No. 4 be directed to waive the loan.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their reply has submitted that a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss to the vehicle in question. His detailed report was submitted showing the liability of opposite parties to an amount of Rs.1,42,002/-. It is pertinent to mention here that supplementary estimate was received in the office of OP to an amount of Rs.2,87,800/-. Surveyor inspected the vehicle and came to the conclusion that damages sustained to the vehicle were frontal impact damages and engine had not sustained any accidental damages and later estimate was qua the loss to the vehicle which were not related to the accidental damage. It is further submitted that OPs No. 1 and 2 are ready to make payment of Rs.1,42,002/- subject to submission of original bills and production of vehicle for inspection as assessed by the surveyor. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the OPs No. 1 and 2.
3. On the other hand, opposite party No. 3 in its reply submitted that complaint is only relating to the OPs No. 1 and 2 and it is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the OP No. 3.
4. On the other hand, opposite party No. 4 in its reply submitted that the OP No. 4 is acting only as corporate agent of OP No. 1 and OP No. 4 is not the insurer. It is further submitted that OP No. 4 sanctioned a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- on 04.10.2016 in favour of the complainant and now the outstanding amount as on 26.04.2018 is Rs.5,84,023/- and the complainant is liable to pay this amount alongwith future interest and other charges to the opposite party No. 4. It is also submitted that OP No. 4 has nothing to do with the alleged case of complainant and the dispute is between complainant and OPs No. 1 to 3. Admittedly, the complainant availed the car loan from the OP and the car was hypothecated. The OP has a legal right to recover the loan amount alongwith interest and other charges.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.06.2018. Ld. Counsel for OPs No. 1 and 2 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on dated 20.11.2018. Ld. counsel for OP No. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on dated 20.11.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No. 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A and closed his evidence on dated 20.11.2018.
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 as per copy of survey report Ex.R4, the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.142002/-. Beside this loss, opposite party No.3 also given supplementary estimate of Base Engine Assembly amounting to rs.287800/- but the opposite party has denied the same on the ground that damages sustained to the vehicle were frontal impact damages and engine had not sustained any accidental damages and later estimate was qua the loss to the vehicle which were not related to the accidental damage. In this regard it is observed that the cause of accident as per survey report Ex.R4 is due to collusion of a front running vehicle with the vehicle in question. Hence the vehicle in question got damaged. If there was any defect in engine earlier to the accident, it could not have run properly. The damages to the engine was also the result of alleged accident. Hence the plea taken by the opposite parties that the engine had not sustained any accidental damages is false and fabricated and no substantial evidence has been placed on record to prove this fact. In this regard, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in 2016(3)CLT 218, titled as M/s Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Vs. Ranbir Singh, whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has rightly held that: “Consequential loss being as a result of the intial damage to the car has to be treated as one loss: it cannot be separated from the first part of loss-It is established that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the damage of his car”. As such the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is also entitled for the claim of Rs.287800/- beside the loss assessed by the surveyor amounting to Rs.142002/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that the opposite party No.1 & 2 shall pay the claim amount of Rs.142002/- plus Rs.287800/- i.e. total Rs.429802/-(Rupees four lac twenty nine thousand eight hundred and two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.10.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. It is made clear that the amount so awarded shall be issued by the opposite party no.1 & 2 in favour of respondent no.4 against the adjustment of loan account of the complainant with the opposite party no.4.
8. 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:
20.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
