Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/533/2018

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

13 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	533 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	26.09.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	13.06.2019

 

 

 

 

 

Amandeep Singh son of Sh.Subhash Singh, r/o H.No.186, Village Behlolpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office: SCO No.357-358, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

 

2]  United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Claim Service Hub, Regional Office: SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Manager/Incharge.

 

3]  Kotak Mohindra Prime Limited, Plot No.57, 6^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued By: Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party NO.3 exparte.  

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, in brief is that, 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), 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 is 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 is 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 NOC 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 is 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 said act of the OP Insurance Company as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.     

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, 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 is stated 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). It is stated that as such, there is 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 is submitted that there is no liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured for the alleged loss. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 5.11.2018.

 

3]      Replication joinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint.  

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

 

6]      The Hyundai Xcent Car bearing Regd.No.PB-01-A-7959 was insured with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.5,17,000/- for the period from 08.10.2017 to 7.10.2018 (Ann.C-1). The said car met with an accident on 18.10.2017 and was extensively damaged.  The Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited was informed about the accident, who appointed Surveyor Inderpal Singh, to inspect the vehicle and assess  the loss. The Surveyor Inderpal Singh submitted his report dated 20.2.2018 (Ann.R-5) with following recommendations:-

         “RECOMMENDATIONS:

The liability on repairs basis is exceeding the prescribed limit of CTL i.e. 75% of the IDV.  The matter was discussed with Claim Hub, Manager and as instructed I worked out the insurer liability as below:

C)      The liability of insurers on NET OF SALVAGE LOSS BASIS i.e. Rs.365500.00 (With R.C.) will be the most economical mode of settlement for the insurers, if the decision to disposal of salvage is taken within stipulated time limit.  Also there will not be any further expenses.

D)      The liability of insurers on NET OF SALVAGE LOSS BASIS i.e. Rs.409500.00 (Without R.C.) will be the most economical mode of settlement for the insurers, if the decision to disposal of salvage is taken within stipulated time limit.  Also there will not be any further expenses.”

 

7]                The car was manufactured in May, 2015 and it was purchased & got registered by the complainant on 26.10.2015 and just after two years of plying, it met with an accident on 18.10.2017 and damaged.  As per the report of Surveyor (Ann.R-5), the car was in good condition.

 

8]       Keeping into consideration all the aspects i.e. assessment made by the Surveyor and bona-fide cause of accident to the vehicle, the OPs No.1 & 2 agreed in principle to settle the claim on total loss basis and took up the matter with Manager, Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited vide their letter dated 5.12.2017 (Ann.C-5) for issue of NOC for release of vehicle from hypothecation to facilitate the cancellation of RC and Route Permit of the vehicle.  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide their letter dated 13.2.2018 further took up the matter with State Transport Authority, Punjab, Chandigarh to cancel RC & Route Permit of vehicle No.PB-01-A-7959 to facilitate the settlement of claim (Ann.C-6).  

 

9]       The vehicle in question was having fitness certificate valid upto 14.10.2017, but before the owner of the vehicle could get it renewed for further period, it unfortunately met with an accident on 18.10.2017 just after 3/4 days of expiry of fitness certificate.  As per Surveyor Report, the Car was in good condition at the time of accident and as such, mere delay of 3-4 days in getting the fitness certificate renewed from the concerned authority, cannot defeat the genuine claim of the complainant.  The renewal of the fitness certificate in the present case seems to be a mere technical formality and cannot be a ground for repudiation of claim.

10]      The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No.1503 of 2004 – G.Kothainachiar Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., decided on 29.10.2007, while considering the issues identical with the facts & issues involved in the present complaint, has upheld the order of District Forum to pay damage caused to the car along with compensation as awarded by the District Forum.  The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

 

“As stated above, in the present case, the insured was having fitness certificate with regard to the vehicle till 30th May, 1995. The accident took place on 20th June, 1995. Further, as per the RTO Inspection Report, the claimant was in good condition for its being plied at the time of accident. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and is set aside. The order passed by the District Forum is restored.

 

In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,508/- towards the damage caused to the car and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation, as ordered by the District Forum, within a period of six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.”

 

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.

 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules.

Announced

13^th June, 2019                                                            

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER