Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 446
Instituted on : 03.09.2019
Decided on : 14.10.2024.
Shiv Rattan (aged 47 years) s/o Sh. Haripal, R/o Village & Post office Nidana, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The New India Assurance Company Limited Registered and Corporate Office: “New India Assurance” Bldg. 87 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, (Policy no. 35380031150300000904 Dated 30.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 Vehicle No. HR15B9338).
- The New India Assurance Company Limited, Second Floor, AnandPalaza, Chottu Ram Chowk, Civil road Rohtak-124001, Haryana Through its Branch Manager, (Policy no. 35380031150300000904 Dated 30.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 Vehicle No. HR15B9338).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Dharmender Singh Saiwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he is a resident of village and post office Nidana Tehsil Meham District Rohtak and owns a Ford Figo car bearing registration no. HR-15B-9338. On 05/12/2015, the said car was being driven by his nephew Vipinwhile coming from Bhiwani towards Nidana village. Suddenly a Neel Gaicame at high speed in front of the alleged car near Meham Road, Bhiwani and to avoid hitting the animal, Vipin lost his control and the car was overturned and was severely damaged. Vipin, who was wearing a seat belt, sustained minor injuries. The accident accrued due to the sudden appearance of the animal resulting in total damage of the car. The complainant promptly informed the insurance company about the accident. The surveyor of the insurance company collected all the documents and their representative assured the complainant that the claim would be processed as a total loss under the insurance policy. The opposite party initially indicated that the claim of Rs. 4,68,454/- would be settled soon but after waiting for a sufficient time, and despite repeated requests made by the complainant, no payment was made.At the direction of employees of opposite party, complainant had sent the vehicle to the Palm Motors Pvt. Ltd on Jind Road Rohtakand deposited Rs.20,000/- on 13.01.2016 for which receipts were issued. However, despite parking the car there and completing the formalities by the complainant, the insurance company did not settle the total loss claim. On 13.08.2019, the complainant requested for full claim amount. In response to this, the opposite parties rejected the claim citing expiry of 365 days limit. Due to non passing of the claim of the vehicle of the complainant, he and his family have suffered a huge financial losses and mental stress. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that the insurance company be directed to pay the insurance total loss of Rs.4,68,454/- alongwith additional Rs.100000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- for legal fees, besides any other relief which this Commission may found appropriate.
2. After registration of complaint noticeswere issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections, such as the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to this Court/Commission with clean hands, the accident had took place on 05.12.2015 but the present complaint was filed in the year of 2019 and thus there is gap/delay of 4 years in filing the complaint and therefore, the present complaint is highly time barred and not maintainable and the same should be dismissed. It is contented that after getting the information from the complainant regarding damage of Ford Figo car bearing registration no. HR-15B-9338, the opposite party immediately deputed its Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who inspected the vehicle in question and assessed the loss on the basis of Net of salvage basis as Rs.4,04,454/- and the said assessed amount has been approved by competent authority of the opposite party. The car of the complainant is/was financed by ICICI Bank, Rohtak and same was mortgaged with the bank and the opposite party is ready to pay the said payment subject to cancellation of RC. On merits of the case, the opposite party reiterated that the cancelled RC has not been provided by the complainant despite several requests and repeated notices. The claim has not been refused by the opposite party. It remained pending only due to failure of complainant to comply with these formalities. It is asserted that the opposite party has acted according to the policy terms and condition and there is no deficiency in the services on the part of opposite parties. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs, as the complainant is not entitled to the relief as sought by the complainant.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW2/A, documents Ex. P-1 to Ex P-7 and closed the evidence on 27.01.2023. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence on 09.05.2024.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted their written arguments on 07.10.2024.We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The main contention of the insurance company is that the accident took place on 05.12.2015 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2019 i.e. after a gap of 4 years. Hence the complaint is highly time barred. The insurance company has placed on record a letter dispatched on 30.01.2017 to the complainant submitting therein, “to submit the cancelled RC so that the claim file of the complainant can be processed for payment”. But no postal or courier receipt of this letter has been attached with the letter to prove the fact that the same was ever delivered to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has submitted that he received an information from Palm Ford Jind Road, Rohtak on dated 13.08.2019 to the effect that the claim of the complainant has been rejected by the insurance company. To prove this fact he has placed on record a computerized copy of a document atpage no.2 of Ex.P6. The perusal of file shows that the present complaint has been filed on 03.01.2019 so as per our opinion the complaint is within time. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that complainant has not submitted the RC before the insurance company. But in the present case vehicle in question is still hypothecated with ICICI Bank, so it was not possible for the complainant to submit the cancelled RC before the insurance company priorto deposit of whole loan amount. So the complainant was unable to submit cancelled RC before the insurance company. Hence the claim of the complainant has been wrongly rejected by the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle after deducting the salvage value. As per the respondent the claim has been assessed on net of salvage basis to the tune of Rs.404454/- against the IDV of Rs.468454/- after assessing the wreck value as Rs.63000/-. In the written statement it has been mentioned that the complainant has given his consent against this settlement. But the insurance company failed to place on record any document that the complainant had ever given any consent to the opposite party.The wreck value of Rs.63000/- is highly assessed by the opposite parties and as per our opinion,it should be assessed as Rs.40000/-. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.428454/-(Rs.468454/- less Rs.40000/-) to the complainant.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the alleged amount of Rs.428454/-(Rupees four lac twenty eight thousand four hundred and fifty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.09.2019 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the financer i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. and after deducting the loan amount, if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the complainant. Complainant is directed to not to use the vehicle or to ply the same on road. However, he can sell the same in scrap. Complainant is further directed to send a letter to RTO for cancellation of RC within 15 days. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
6. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
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:
14.10.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
