STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 01.06.2017
Date of Final Hearing: 06.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2024
Consumer Complaint No.353 of 2017
Ranjeet Singh Sehrawat S/o Sh. Umed Singh Sehrawat, R/o H.No. 1235, Block-B, Palam Vihar, Gurugram (Haryana).
....Complainant
Versus
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No. 62, Sector-44, Ground Floor, Near HUDA Metro City Center, Gurugram (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.
...Opposite Party
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. Pranjal Chaudhary proxy counsel for Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, counsel for complainant.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Complainant has alleged that: he is owner of Mercedes Benz vehicle No. DL-3F-H-0015, having engine No. 11297231583032, chassis No. WBD2201672A375746. He had purchased insurance policy valid from 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2016 from OP. It was total risk cover policy. IDV value of vehicle stated therein was Rs.34,00,000/-. On 02.09.2016, he was going from Jind to Gurgaon. When he reached Gohana at about 06:30 pm, his vehicle met with an accident. Truck came at high speed, driven in rash and negligent manner. It hit against left side of his car and its driver fled away from spot. Due to instance impact of hit given by truck; his vehicle (Mercedes Benz) became unbalanced and struck against road side concrete structure. ‘Air bags’ of the car deployed and because of that he (complainant) did not suffer any injury, but his car was totally damaged. No FIR was got registered. He intimated regarding accident to insurer/OP. Vehicle was taken at MB-T&T Motors-Gurgaon by towing it for repairs, with crane and officials of MB-T&T Motors also informed insurer. OP-insurer deputed its surveyor-cum-investigating officer namely: Vishal Gupta. MB-T&T Motors-Gurgaon submitted estimate of Rs.1,05,27,235/-. As per plea; surveyor told complainant that: as repairing cost of vehicle is/was very high and damaged vehicle is/was beyond limits of getting repaired, so he would be asked to handover damaged vehicle to company, as ‘total loss vehicle’ and IDV value of car as shown in policy i.e. Rs.34.00 lacs would be released in his name. Complainant provided all documents related to accident to insurer, as and when asked by it. Insurer did not respond him and reminders had been sent to it. By way of written representation dated 10.11.2016; complainant also requested insurer for settlement of issue. Mukesh Setia and Company send letter dated 07.12.2016 to him asking for sending documents mentioned in letter. Complainant personally visited the office of said company and submitted documents again, and informed about reason of non-registration of FIR. Again whole exercise went futile as there was no response on the part of OP. He issued legal notice dated 05.04.2017 through registered post vide receipt dated 06.04.2017. On these pleas; complaint has been filed for directions to OP to release Rs.34.00 lacs as shown in insurance policy with 18% interest p.a.; to pay Rs.1.00 lacs towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost. Text of complaint is supported by complainant’s affidavit.
2. In response, OP/insurer raised contest. In its written statement; it is pleaded that complaint is an abuse of process of law. It is not maintainable. There arises no cause of action against it. Complainant has suppressed material facts by not giving any reference to OP’s letter dated 01.05.2017, whereby it had offered complainant to replace the subject vehicle, with a vehicle of same make, model and manufacturing year, available in market. OP asked complainant to convey his consent. Instead of acting upon OP’s offer; complainant has preferred this complaint which is pre-mature. OP is not negligent in providing service to him. It has accepted loss assessment made by its independent surveyor. It is pleaded that settlement of complainant’s claim, as cashless settlement, in terms of condition No. 3 of private car package policy, which is lesser than amount claimed by him, would not give any cause of action to him to file complaint. It is admitted that OP issued insurance policy valid from 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2016. It is pleaded that complainant is fourth registered owner of subject vehicle-Mercedes Benz Model 2003. Repair liability was assessed by its surveyor at 84% of IDV. In terms of policy, insured vehicle shall be treated as constructive total loss, if aggregate cost of its repair exceeds 75% of IDV. It is pleaded that: IDV value of the vehicle has/had been kept as highly exorbitant. Mr. Pardeep Kumar purchased the vehicle from second owner who has/had insured it with Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. for IDV value of Rs.17,10,000/- for policy, effective from 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015. It is pleaded that: OP’s investigator in its report has concluded that: market value of same make and model is available at Rs.10,51,000/-. In view of this, it was recommended that claim be settled and offer of replacement of vehicle by buying it from used vehicle market was made, vide letter dated 01.05.2017. It is denied that IDV of Rs.34.00 lacs of the vehicle was calculated by OP or by its agent. Inter-alia on these pleas; dismissal of complaint has been prayed. Text of written statement is also supported by affidavit of Piyush Shanker, Assistant General Manager-Legal Claims.
3. Parties led their respective evidence. Complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A towards his affirmative statement on oath and relied upon documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence through his statement dated 03.04.2019. Per contra, OP has tendered duly sworn affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of Shri Piyush Shanker-Manager Legal and relied upon documents viz: Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed its evidence through statement of its counsel dated 18.12.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance and have also perused the material brought on record of this complaint.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has urged that IDV of the subject vehicle: DL-3FH-0015 was Rs.34.00 lacs as per insurance policy valid from 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2016. Accident against subject vehicle had resulted on 02.09.2016 i.e. during currency of insurance policy. It is urged that complainant is entitled to claim IDV of subject vehicle and is unconcerned with any offer made by OP to provide him vehicle of same model, make and manufacturing year which as per stance of OP is available at, quite low price of Rs.10,51,000/-. It is further urged that: may be, the subject vehicle was previously insured at Rs.17,10,000/- vide policy effective from 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015, yet same will not preclude complainant to claim IDV of subject vehicle as Rs.34.00 lacs with which it was insured for relevant period from 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2016 during which the accident had resulted. It is urged that act of OP tantamounts to denying complainant’s justifiable claim despite that he approached it, many times, and also served representation dated 10.11.2016 to it and so also the legal notice dated 05.04.2017.
6. On behalf of OP/insurer it is urged that: IDV value of subject vehicle, as per insurance policy valid from 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2016 has been stated exaggeratedly at Rs.34.00 lacs. To stimulate its contention it is urged that: in just previous year insurance policy i.e. for year 2014-2015 IDV value of subject vehicle has been mentioned at Rs.17,10,000/- and more so, vehicle of same make, model and manufacturing year was easily available from used vehicle market at further low price of Rs.10,51,000/- and accordingly OP/insurer justifiably gave offer to complainant through its letter dated 01.05.2017. Complainant did not give any response/consent to the said offer within ten days from its receipt, so that OP/insurer could have arranged vehicle for him from open used market. Instead, he has filed instant claim. It is urged that there is no deficiency in service of OP, much less any unfair trade practice on its part.
7. On analyzing rival submissions, this Commission has arrived at firm opinion that genesis of dispute as projected in complaint by complainant to claim IDV value of subject vehicle at Rs.34.00 lacs cannot be taken at its face value, being a gospel truth. Admittedly, the subject vehicle is of year 2003 model and further complainant is its fourth registered owner. There is no denial to the fact pleaded by OP/insurer that previous owner of subject vehicle (Pardeep Kumar who had purchased subject vehicle from second owner) had got insured the subject vehicle, with IDV value of Rs.17,10,000/- and that insurance policy was effective from 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015. The subject vehicle has/had unfortunately met with an accident on 02.09.2016 i.e. a year after elapse of tenure of previous insurance policy. Meaning thereby, the subject vehicle was got insured by complainant at exorbitant IDV (Rs.34.00 lacs) in subsequent insurance policy valid from 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2016 for any reason undisclosed. While observing so; this Commission does not remain oblivious of the fact that vehicle of the model/manufacturing year of 2003, after elapse of 12 years of its purchase, cannot command whopping IDV of Rs.34.00 lacs for the obvious reason that: it has to suffer decay and depreciation due to its constant plying on road for more than 12 years. IDV value has to commensurate with the age of any vehicle and there can be no exception so far as this case is concerned. This was the precise reason for OP/insurer to plead in its defence that subject vehicle commands IDV in used vehicle market at Rs.10,51,000/- price. Since OP/insurer had given offer to complainant through its letter dated 01.05.2017-Ex.OP-1 to give his consent within 10 days so that it could arrange vehicle of same make, model and manufacturing year for him from used vehicle market and in same letter OP/insurer has also commanded upon complainant to explain reasons for opting such higher IDV value of vehicle under policy, yet, curiously enough, for reason best known to complainant he has not reverted back with any response. Meaning thereby, ex-facie, there appears no deficiency in service of OP or any unfair trade practice on its part. Despite observing as such; this Commission also finds that OP/insurer should materialize its offer given to complainant through its letter dated 01.05.2017 practically, by paying him this amount (Rs.10,51,000/-) with interest @7% p.a. from 01.05.2017- date of its letter till its realization. Complainant, in turn, on receipt of this amount of Rs.10,51,000/- with awarded interest, would hand over physical possession of vehicle to OP/insurer and would facilitate the transfer of ownership of vehicle in the name of OP/insurer. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; there would be no further order as to compensation for complainant; and likewise complainant is also not entitled to any litigation expenses. Complaint is allowed in aforesaid terms.
8. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
10. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 27th September, 2024
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
