Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 191
Instituted on : 01.05.2018
Decided on : 24.04.2023
Phoolchand S/o Sh. Rati Ram, R/o Near Village Jasaur Kheri, Tehsil Bahdurgarh, District Jhajjar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Car No. HR-13H-6905, 2nd Floor, S.C.O. No. 400-401-402, HDFC Bank, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- Manager, Badhwar Car Pvt. Ltd. Sonipat Road, Rohtak. Agent Insurance Company Car No. HR-13H-6905
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.S.Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is owner of car bearing registration No. HR-13H-6905 and his car was insured with opposite party no. 1 through cashless facility for the period 07.06.2014 to 06.06.2015. The premium of Rs.23765/- was paid by the complainant and at that time the value of the vehicle was Rs.5,90,000/-. On 25.02.2015 the alleged vehicle was met with an accident and completely damaged. The damaged vehicle was brought to the workshop of opposite party no. 2. The vehicle was lift up by the crane from the place of accident and receipt No. 74483 dated 25.02.2015 was issued, in which the vehicle has been shown as fully damage. It is submitted that repairing work was pending, so the opposite party no. 2 kept the vehicle in its custody and not handed over to the complainant. During this period, the Jat Reservation Agitation was started and the vehicles standing in the workshop of opposite party no. 2 were burnt including the vehicle of the complainant. When complainant demanded his car from opposite party no. 2 then they told to the complainant that his vehicle was burnt with the other vehicles and he will get full claim of the vehicle. Thereafter complainant approached many times to the opposite parties but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a., Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply submitted that they had already settled the claim and paid the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with the consent of the complainant. Complainant has also submitted the consent letter to the answering opposite party after mentioning therein that his vehicle bearing no. HR13H-6905 is repairable but he agreed to accept the full and final settlement of his claim on net of salvage basis of Rs.275000/- and the complainant is retaining the damage vehicle. It was further submitted in the consent letter that opposite party will not be responsible for the decision of complainant in dealing with the said vehicle post settlement of the claim. The policy of the vehicle stand canceled immediately upon settlement. The answering opposite party has no knowledge about the alleged burnt of vehicle as the claim of the complainant has already been paid and settled at the amount of Rs.275000/- in the year 2015 and the damaged vehicle was retained by the complainant. The insurance policy and coverage was not in existence with the answering respondent at the time of alleged burnt of vehicle. The answering respondent has no knowledge about the parking, burnt and repair of vehicle as alleged. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no. 2 in its reply submitted that the alleged vehicle was brought by the complainant in total loss accidental condition to the answering opposite party on 25.02.2015. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party no. 1, so the opposite party no. 1 deputed a surveyor who inspected and conducted the survey of the said vehicle and after that the complainant settled the claim of loss caused to the vehicle with the opposite party no. 1. The scrap(vehicle being total loss) was lying at the premises of the answering opposite party no. 1 for one year but the complainant did not bothered to take the same back despite several reminders. It is further submitted that on 20th February, 2016 during the Jat Agitation, the entire premises including workshop was burnt and the scrap of the complainant was also burnt in the said accident. FIR in this regard got registered by them. Thereafter the complainant approached the answering opposite party in the month of January 2017 for payment of scrap and answering opposite party paid Rs.8000/- by way of cheque no. 51004566 dated 16.01.2017 drawn at Federal Bank, Rohtak to the complainant towards scrap. Thereafter the complainant had no cause or concern with the said scrap(vehicle being total loss). Hence the claim of the complainant is bad in the eyes of law. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.07.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R7 and closed his evidence on 10.07.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the policy was issued by the respondent no.1 for the period 07.06.2014 to 06.06.2015. As per complainant the vehicle met with an accident on 25.02.2015 and he parked the same with the respondent no.2. Surveyor was appointed and the loss has been assessed by the surveyor and loss assessor. Ex.R3 is consent letter given by the complainant, which is also signed by 2 witnesses. As per this consent letter complainant is ready for settlement of case for Rs.275000/- on net of salvage basis/cash loss basis. Complainant has received the alleged amount from the opposite party No.1. Thereafter Insurance period lapsed and insurance has not been renewed by the complainant. Moreover, as per consent letter, policy was cancelled immediately as per settlement. Hence respondent no.1 is not liable to pay any further claim. In this regard law cited by ld. counsel for the opposite party of Hon’ble State Commission, in First Appeal no.447 of 2016 decided on 01.03.2017 in case titled as Reliance General insurance Company Vs. Narender Kumar is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, opposite party No.2 has also paid Rs.8000/- by way of cheque no.51004566 dated 16.01.2017 drawn at Federal Bank, Rohtak to the complainant towards scrap. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. 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:
24.04.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
