Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/162/2019

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amandeep Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Singh Adv.

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/162/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	31/07/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	29/10/2021

 

 

 

 

 

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, Plot No. 57, 6^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Representative.

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1.     Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Subhash Singh, Resident of H.No.186, Village Behlolpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: SCO 357-358, FF, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager.

 

3.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Claim Service Hub, Regional Office: SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Incharge.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA                    MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Counsel for the Appellant.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Respondent No.1.
	:	Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/183/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	22/08/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	29/10/2021

 

 

 

 

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: SCO 357-358, FF, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Claim Service Hub, Regional Office: SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Incharge.

Both Appellants through their Authorized Signatory, United India Insurance Co. Limited, Regional Office, SCO No. 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

….Appellants

Vs.

 

1.     Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Subhash Singh, Resident of H.No.186, Village Behlolpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

2.    Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, Plot No. 57, 6^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA                    MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Counsel for the Appellants.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Respondent No.1.
	:	Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Counsel for Respondent No.2.

 

[3]

Appeal No.	:	A/199/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	06/09/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	29/10/2021

 

 

 

 

 

Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Subhash Singh, Resident of H.No.186, Village Behlolpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: SCO 357-358, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager.

 

3.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Claim Service Hub, Regional Office: SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Incharge.

 

3.    Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, Plot No. 57, 6^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA                    MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant.
	:	Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Counsel for Respondent No.3.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of three appeals i.e. A/162/2019 (filed by Appellant/Opposite Party No.3), A/183/2019 (filed by Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and A/199/2019 (filed by the Appellant/complainant), against the order dated 13.06.2019, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh), vide which it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.533 of 2018, filed by the Complainant, qua Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and dismissed the same qua Opposite Party No.3, by passing the following order: -

“11]      Keeping into consideration, the complete facts & circumstances of the case as well as law, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the OPs No.1 & 2 have wrongly & illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and as such rendered deficient services. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 & 2/United India Insurance Company Ltd. with direction to pay an amount of Rs.4,09,500/- (Net of Salvage Loss Basis Without RC, as per report of Surveyor) with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 22.3.2018 (Ann.R-7) till realization, along with litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-.

       This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12]      The complaint qua Opposite Party No.3/Kotak Mohindra Prime Limited is dismissed.”

2.         The facts in brief are, the Complainant got his Taxi Car Hyundai Xcent bearing Regd. No.PB-01-A-7959, duly insured with OPs No.1 & 2 for the period from 8.10.2017 to 7.10.2018 (Ann.C-1). Unfortunately, said car met with an accident on 18.10.2017 in the night at 10.30 PM, near Punjab College, Sarkpada on Sirhand-Chunnai Road, when it was being driven by Driver Sh.Harinder Shahi on his return to Kharar. It was averred that the unknown vehicle hit the taxi resulting to which it went out of control and hit against the roadside tree on the left side. The accident was reported to the Police at Police Post Chunni Kalan, District Mohali, who registered DDR No.5 (Ann.C-4).  It was submitted that due information was given to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the car was taken to authorised repairer M/s Joshi Hyundai, C-117, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali. The loss estimate was prepared, Final Survey was carried out by Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party No.2 and thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 approved the claim of the complainant on Total Loss basis. However, the Opposite Party No.2 demanded N.O.C. from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., with whom the damaged vehicle was financed, for cancellation of registration and other related documents, but Opposite Party No.3 did not issue the NOC and demanded full payment in advance. It was also submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 though approved the claim on Total Loss basis, but did not make the payment of the claim, despite several requests made by the complainant as well as legal notice dated 28.8.2018.  Alleging the aforesaid act of the OP-Insurance Company as deficiency in service, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5,17,000/- being sum insured of the insured vehicle, alongwith interest @18% from the date of loss i.e. 18.10.2017 till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
3.         The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply stated that the Independent Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,65,000/- on NET of Salvage Loss Basis with RC vide his Survey Report dated 20.2.2018 (Ann.R-5).  It was also stated that during verification of claim of the complainant and documents, it was found that the vehicle in question was not having Fitness Certificate at the time of loss as it had expired on 14.10.2017 whereas the accident had taken place on 18.10.2017 (Annexure R-6). As such, there was no liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured for the alleged loss and therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OPs vide letter dated 22.3.2018. It was submitted that there is no liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured for the alleged loss. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied. 
4.         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.11.2018.
5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.
7.         Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties, have filed the instant appeals.
8.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides. 

Appeal No.162 of 2019 – Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs. Amandeep Singh & Others.

 

9.         The main grouse of the Appellant is, the Respondent No.1/ Complainant (Amandeep Singh) still owes a sum of Rs.4,34,310.94P. In order to prove the same, the appellant has placed on record copies of the loan agreement, certificate of registration and loan account statement as Annexures A-2 to A-4.  In the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (now, District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh), it has been ordered to Respondents No.2 & 3 to pay Respondent No.1/Complainant an amount of Rs.4,09,500/- (Net of Salvage Loss Basis Without RC, as per report of Surveyor) with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 22.3.2018 till realization, along with litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-. It has been submitted that as per Hire Purchase Agreement executed between the Appellant and Respondent No.1/Complainant, there is first charge of the Appellant on the vehicle in question and if any amount is to be paid against any claim by the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, the same will be paid to the Appellant and after clearance of outstanding amount towards Appellant remaining amount shall be paid to the Respondent No.1/ Complainant. On these precincts, by means of instant appeal, the sole prayer of the Appellant is for modification of the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 rendered by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh to the extent that the claim amount be paid to it (Appellant) instead of the Respondent No.1/Complainant.
10.         Needless to mention here that it is a well known fact that the liability of any Bank/Financial Institution has to be met primarily and on priority basis by whomsoever has taken a loan from them. In the case in appeal, since the Respondent No.1/Complainant had financed the insured vehicle from the Appellant, it shall be the primary responsibility of the Respondent No.1/Complainant to make the payment/clear the outstanding loan of the Appellant, on receipt of the claim amount from the Respondents No.1 & 2, as Appellant is having the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the Respondent No.1/ Complainant.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs. The Respondent No.1/Complainant is directed to first clear the dues of the Appellant which is still outstanding towards the loan availed by him for purchasing the vehicle, on receipt of the claim amount from the Respondents No.2 & 3.

Appeal No.183 of 2019 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Vs. Amandeep Singh & Others.

 

12.         By way of this appeal, the Appellants have appealed that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the repudiation of the claim of Respondent No.1/ Complainant was genuine and according to law and therefore, the order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh needs to be set-aside. 
13.         In our opinion, the order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference/modification of this Commission as Appellants have wrongly and illegally repudiated the well founded claim of the Complainant Respondent No.1/Complainant and as such, are guilty of rendering deficient services to the Respondent No.1/Complainant. The Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh has rightly held that directed the Appellants to pay an amount of Rs.4,09,500/- (Net of Salvage Loss Basis Without RC, as per report of Surveyor) with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 22.3.2018 till realization, along with litigation cost to the Respondent No.1/Complainant, which is a correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh has rightly passed the impugned order.
14.         As a consequence, the present Appeal is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Appeal No.199 of 2019 – Amandeep Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

 

15.         In this appeal, the main grouse of the Appellant/Complainant is to modify the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, being arbitrary and against the facts/ evidence on record.
16.         However, per material on record, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh since the Ld. Lower Commission has awarded the amount of Rs.4,09,500/- (Net of Salvage Loss Basis Without RC, as per report of Surveyor) with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 22.3.2018 till realization, along with litigation cost, after analyzing the facts of the case meticulously.  
17.         In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18.         For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh is upheld. However, the Appellant/Complainant is directed that on receipt of the claim amount of Rs.4,09,500/- (Net of Salvage Loss Basis Without RC, as per report of Surveyor) with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 22.3.2018 till realization from Respondents No.1 & 2, he shall make the payment/clear the outstanding loan of the Respondent No.3, on receipt of the claim amount from the Respondents No.1 & 2, as Respondent No.3 being a Financial Institution is having the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the Appellant/ Complainant.
19.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Parties.
20.         Certified copy of this order be placed in Appeal No.183 of 2019 and Appeal No.199 of 2019.
21.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

29^th October, 2021                                                              Sd/-

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”