State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhwinder Kaur vs M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... on 22 January, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.654 of 2017
Date of institution: 13.09.2017
Date of Decision : 22.01.2018
Sukhwinder Kaur, aged about 45 years, wife of Sh.Krishan Singh,
resident of street No.2, Dabwali Road, Anoop Nagar, Bathinda.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited, Registered Office Dare House, 2nd Floor, No.2, NCS
Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its MD/Chairman.
2. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office at Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.......Respondents
2.
First Appeal No.693 of 2017
Date of institution: 06.10.2017
Date of Decision : 22.01.2018
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
Regd. Office: Dare House, 2nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road,
Parrys, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600001 through its Authorized
Signatory.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office at Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Sukhwinder Kaur, aged about 45 years, wife of Sh.Krishan Singh,
resident of street No.2, Dabwali Road, Anoop Nagar, Bathinda.
.......Respondent/complainant
F.A. No. 654 of 2017 2
First Appeal against order dated
26.05.2017 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.I.S.Kakkar, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
This order will dispose of both the appeals. F.A. No.654 of 2017 has been filed by the appellant/complainant, whereas F.A. No.693 of 2017 was filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 26.05.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.424 dated 20.07.2016 at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short 'District Forum'), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to release a sum of Rs.6,28,691/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. They were further directed that the order was to be complied within the period of 45 days, failing which, the interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be paid thereafter.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the averments that complainant being owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-03AF-1299, Engine No.E483CDDB602182 and Chasis No.MC2264RC0DB079466 got it insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.3379/01033715/000/01 for the period F.A. No. 654 of 2017 3 23.04.2015 to 22.04.2016. On 02.01.2016, the complainant met with an accident at about 2.30 a.m. near Tri-Junction, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala due striking with the Canter No.RJ-31A-3288 and in this regard DDR was lodged with P.S. City Tapa. The opposite parties were informed about the accident and insurance claim was lodged. The vehicle was extensively damaged. Opposite parties had appointed a Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. The complainant also furnished all the requisite documents as required by the opposite parties including Driving License of the driver, Registration Certificate, Route Permit, Fitness Certificate etc. The surveyor had also inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss. However, the complainant got prepared the estimate of the loss from M/s Malwa Motors, Phul, Distt. Bathinda who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, therefore, it was a case of total loss. Legal notice was got served upon the opposite parties through his Advocate Sh.Jagsir Singh Dhillon from Bathinda but opposite parties did not give any reply to the notice and did not pay the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed the reply taking legal objections that complaint involved complicated legal factual questions which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings before the District Forum, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court; complainant concealed the material facts F.A. No. 654 of 2017 4 from the Forum. He has not complied with the requirements in the letter dated 23.08.2016 and has not submitted the liability confirmation mail, chasis number, photos, insured signature proof, registration certificate, claim discharge voucher, satisfaction/ discharge voucher and bills of repair. The complainant remained adamant to claim on total loss basis and that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties, therefore, she has no locus standi to file this complaint. Issuance of the policy is admitted. Further Rs.6,28,691.48 was assessed as loss by the surveyor appointed by the opposite parties. The assessment made by M/s Malwa Motors to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- is over exaggerated. The complainant is not entitled to the claim because he has not completed the formalities as per the letter dated 23.08.2016. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. The parties tendered their evidences before the District Forum.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit and documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21, whereas opposite parties has tendered in evidence the affidavit and documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP1/5.
6. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written reply and evidences by the parties, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite parties have filed the present appeal. F.A. No. 654 of 2017 5
8. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. It was argued by the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the claim is not payable because the complainant failed to submit the documents as per letter dated 23.08.2016. Otherwise the issuance of insurance policy is admitted. It is also a matter of record that the surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,28,691.48p which has been allowed by the District Forum. However, counsel for the appellants/opposite parties stated that without compliance of the letter dated 23.08.2016 the claim is not payable and moreover the complainant has not got repaired the vehicle and without repair such claim as assessed by the surveyor cannot be paid. Whereas, counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that claim allowed by the District Forum is not adequate because the complainant wants to repair the vehicle and whatever will be the charges the payment should be paid and not according to the assessment made by the surveyor because M/s Malwa Motors had the assessment to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. For this proposal, counsel for the opposite parties had agreed.
10. In view of the above, we dispose of both the appeals with the order that the complainant will get the vehicle repaired and whatever would be the costs of repair after making appropriate deductions on account of excess clause, salvage value and depreciation, the remaining amount will be paid by the opposite parties to the dealer who will repair the vehicle. The remaining payment will be made by the complainant to the dealer. However, it is made clear F.A. No. 654 of 2017 6 that the complainant will undertakes to repair the said vehicle from the authorized dealer of EICHER, who is manufacturer of the vehicle in question. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum will remain as it is.
11. The sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the appellants/opposite parties in F.A. No.693 of 2017 at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount according to her entitlement and the District Forum shall pass an appropriate order in this regard.
12. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) Presiding Judicial Member (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) Member January 22, 2018 parmod