| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.140 of 14-05-2018 Decided on 02-07-2019 Nathu Ram Parshotam Lal HUF, through its Karta Anil Kumar Bansal aged about 53 years S/o Nathu Ram S/o Jethu Ram R/o Ward No.13, Friends Colony Near N.S. Memorial School, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Deep Honda, Sartaj Palace, Mansa Road Near Mahindra Cars, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner. 2.IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor Opposite Nirankari Bhawan, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory. 3.IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., IFFCO Tower, 4th & 5th Floors, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Sunder Gupta, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Sandeep Baghla, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.2 & 3: Sh.Vinod Kumar Garg, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Nathu Ram Parshotam Lal HUF (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Deep Honda and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that Anil Kumar Bansal, being Karta of the complainant's firm purchased one Honda Amaze 1.5 VXMT car having registration No.PB-03AD-8630 from opposite party No.1. He got it comprehensively insured (cashless policy) from opposite party Nos.2 and 3 through opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 issued the insurance policy. No terms and conditions were ever supplied to the complainant. There is fully automatic centre locking system installed in the car. It is alleged that on 24.1.2018, key of the car was lost. The application was moved regarding lost of key. The complainant also given intimation to the insurance company. Opposite parties got submitted all the required documents from the complainant. The complainant requested opposite parties to change the lock of the car with new one, but they conveyed him that the new lock-set is not available in the inventory at this time and as and when the same is available, he will be informed. Subsequently, on enquiry, it was conveyed that the lock-set is available now and complainant should bring his car to the workshop for replacement of lock-set alongwith ignition key. It is further alleged that opposite parties informed the complainant that they had already given claim intimation to opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 appointed the surveyor to survey the vehicle and assess the loss. The complainant was asked to park his car in the workshop of opposite party No.1 as the same will take 1/2 days. He went to the office of opposite party No.1 and met the official of opposite parties. Er.Rajpal Singhal (Surveyor and Loss Assessor of opposite party Nos.2 and 3) and opposite party No.1 in the presence of surveyor Rajpal Singhal, informed the complainant that the lock-set has already been replaced, but the insurance company has not cleared the claim yet. The complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.10,152/- to opposite party No.1 from his own pocket and It was asked that same will be reimbursed by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 within few days. As such, he was left with no option except to pay an amount of Rs.10,152/- from his own pocket. Instead of settling the claim, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.3.2018 on flimsy grounds that there was delay of 8 days in intimating the loss to the insurance company and loss is not reported to the police. It is also alleged that the repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant is illegal, null and void and is not binding upon him. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, harassment and financial loss and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/- in addition to reimbursement of Rs.10,152/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In its written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has changed the lock as per the requirement of the complainant and it is entitled to seek the cost of the lock so got replaced by the complainant. The complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite party No.1. The intricate and contentious questions of fact and law are involved in this complaint. They require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, insurance of vehicle by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is not disputed. It is further mentioned that SMC insurance brokers is broker of policy. All other averments are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In their joint written version, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have also raised the legal objections that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus- standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. He is not 'consumer' of opposite parties and lastly, the complaint has not been filed by any competent and authorized person. On merits, it is reiterated that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9152.27/- vide survey report dated 22.3.2018, but the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. No claim is payable. As such, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 26.3.2018. All other averments are denied. In the end, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of letter, (Ex.C1); photocopy of receipt, (Ex.C2); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C3); photocopy of policy, (Ex.C4); photocopy of R.C, (Ex.C5); his affidavit dated 29.10.2018, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Neetu Singh Chahal dated 15.1.2019, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of job card, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan dated 21.6.2018, (Ex.OP2/1); photocopy of survey report, (Ex.OP2/2); photocopy of letter, (Ex.OP2/3); photocopy of policy alongwith terms and conditions, (Ex.OP2/4); affidavit of Raj Paul Singhal dated 22.1.2019, (Ex.OP2/5) and submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant's firm got the vehicle in question insured. Copy of policy is Ex.C4. It proves that the lost of key was also covered. The complainant has also placed on record copy of invoice, (Ex.C2) to prove that he has spent a sum of Rs.10,152/- for replacement of key. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.3.2018, (Ex.C1) on the grounds that there was delay of more than 8 days in intimating the claim and loss is not reported to the police. They have placed on record copy of terms and conditions, (Ex.OP2/4). It is not disputed that it is case of lost of key and not theft of key. There is nothing on record to prove that in case of loss of key, the complainant is required to get FIR registered. Of-course, there is delay of 8 days in lodging the claim, but opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have admittedly appointed surveyor. The report of surveyor is Ex.OP2/2. The surveyor has also assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9152.27/- after applying excess clause of Rs.1000/-. There is nothing to show that the surveyor has raised any suspicion qua genuineness of claim. In these circumstances, delay, if any, is not fatal to repudiate the claim. As such, conclusion is that repudiation of claim is not sustainable. The complainant has pleaded that he has spent Rs.10,152/- and surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9152.27/- after deducting Rs.1000/-. The policy, (Ex.OP2/4) shows that the policy was subject to compulsory deductions of Rs.1000/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.9152.27/- as assessed by the surveyor. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to reimburse an amount of Rs.9152.27/- as assessed by the surveyor, to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance of order within the stipulated period, thereafter the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount payable to the complainant till realization. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 02-07-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
