State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vaibhav Singh vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr. on 4 August, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2015/24
Instituted on : 10.09.2015
Vaibhav Singh Gandhi, S/o Preetam Singh Gandhi,
R/o - Opposite Arora Steel, Dayalabandh,
Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 ... Complainant.
Vs.
1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022 India.
2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited,
Guru Kripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar, Main Road,
Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER.
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Smt. Jaya Goswami, for the complainant.
Shri Deepak Gupta, for the O.P.No.1.
None for the O.P.No.2.
ORDER
Dated : 04/08/2016 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs, seeking following reliefs :-
(a) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs) which has been incurred by the // 2 // complainant for repairing of the trailer or Insured Declared Value (IDV) along with interest @ 9% p.a.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) towards quotation and parking expenses.
(c) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand ) incurred by the complainant for settlement of the claim, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards legal expenses, and Rs.60,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Thousand) towards the payment made in respect of road tax etc.
(d) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony.
(e) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) for loss of the current income and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards loss of future income.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant purchased trailer with the financial assistance of the O.P.No.2 Shri Ram Finance Company. The registration No. of the above trailer is C.G.10-C/6131, engine No. is 11G63157264 and chassis No. is MAT 447212BAG04981. The above vehicle was insured by the // 3 // O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 for the period from 05.08.2013 to 04.08.2014 under Insurance Policy No.10003/31/14/280442. The above trailer of the complainant dashed with a tree and was damaged. The intimation regarding the incident was given to the OPs and claim form along with all relevant documents was submitted before the OPs. The Claim No. 1000/31/15/C/802444 has been registered. As per the instructions of the officers of the O.P.No.1, Shri Paritosh Kumar Singh, the authorized Surveyor of the O.P.No.1 conducted survey. After conducting survey, the Surveyor illegally demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for settlement of claim and the complainant expressed his inability and made a written complaint before the O.P.No.1 on 07.05.2014. After making the above complaint, the O.P.No.1 appointed another Surveyor, who assessed the loss. Shivam Motors, who is authorized dealer and Service Agency of the above vehicle has informed that the repairing cost of the above vehicle is Rs.19,84,021/- and the repairing cost of the trolley of trailer (dala) is Rs.7,00,000/-. In the above quotation it is specifically mentioned that there is possibility to increase the cost of repairing during the course of repairing. After the accident, the complainant continuously made correspondence with the OPs and also contacted them through telephone for settlement of the claim, but the complainant received a letter dated 20.10.2014 from the O.P.No.1 in which the complainant was instructed to get the vehicle repaired and to submit search report along with repairing invoice. On 05.11.2014, // 4 // the complainant had written a letter to O.P. No.1 and informed that the repairing cost of the vehicle in question is more than the cost of new vehicle, which comes in the category of total loss, but the O.P. No.1 did not includ it under total loss. The complainant asked the O.P.No.1 to bear all the expenses to be incurred in repairing of the vehicle, but till date the O.P.No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant and also did not send the reply of the above letter. The complainant sent a letter to the O..P.No.2 Shri Ram Finance Company, which is an institution relating to O.P.No.1 and requested to stop to calculate the interest and to make payment of the monthly installments and on payment of the claim amount the same be adjusted in the loan account of the complainant, but inspite of making above request, the O.P.No.2 started recovery proceeding of the loan amount due to which the complainant is mentally harassed. After the accident, the vehicle in question was parked in Shivam Motors for survey and repairing as per the instructions of the Insurance Company. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- for assessment of loss and for preparation of quotation and obtained receipt for the same. A sum of Rs.300/- per day is taking by Shivam Motors towards parking charges. The said amount is payable by the complainant, which was paid by him. On 28.04.2014, Shivam Motors Private Limited provided estimate / quotation according to which a sum of Rs.19,02,121/- would be incurred in the repairing of the vehicle. After survey // 5 // estimate / quotation, according to the letter dated 08.05.2013 sent by the O.P.No.1, the O.P.No.1 told the complainant to start the repairing of the vehicle and the complainant vide his letter dated 15.05.2014 requested that the repairing cost would be near about Rs.20,00,000/-, whereas the cost of the new vehicle is Rs.18,10,000/-, therefore, the vehicle be not repaired and the same be taken in the category of total loss. The claim be settled and the amount be adjusted in the loan account with the O.P.No.2, but the O.P.No.1 did not pay attention and pressurised the complainant to start the repairing of the vehicle at the earliest. The O.P. No.1 did not give any direction in writing or orally to the complainant that after repairing of the vehicle the amount of all bills would be paid. The complainant did not get the vehicle repaired. In spite of having talks with the complainant and O.P.No.1 the O.P.No.1 did not sanction for making payment, therefore, the complainant brought the vehicle from Shivam Motors without repairing and parked the same in an open place because according to the terms and conditions of Shivam Motors the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.300/- per day from 26.04.2014 towards parking charge. The loss to the vehicle in question comes in the category of total loss. The act of the O.P. No.1 comes in the category of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The O.P.No.1 received the amount of premium from the complainant and it is responsible for making payment of the loss suffered by the complainant, but did not // 6 // pay the same and violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint.
3. The O.P.No.1 has filed its written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against the O.P.No.1 in the complaint. The O.P.No.1 has averred that the claim submitted in respect of the vehicle in question, has not been finally settled by the Insurance Company. It is not possible for the Insurance Company to finally settle the claim for want of letter of indemnity and letter of subrogation and other necessary documents. The O.P.No.1 did not finally settle the claim of the complainant and did not refused from its liability and in these circumstance the complaint filed without accrual of cause of action, hence prima facie the same is liable to be dismissed. The damage to the vehicle is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The O.P.No.1 Insurance Company sent reminders to the complainant three times i.e. firstly on 08.05.2014, secondly on 14.05.2014 and lastly on 09.06.2014 in which the complainant was requested to send some documents for final survey. The O.P.No.1 is always ready to get the vehicle repaired, which is applicable under the terms and conditions of the policy and is recognized. The O.P.No.1 appointed Surveyor. The Surveyor conducted survey and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,99,491/-. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the O.P.No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
// 7 //
4. The O.P.No.2 has filed its written statement and averred that contract of insurance in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.10-C-6131 was executed between the complainant and O.P.No.1. The complainant did not make correspondence with the O.P.No.2 and also did not contact the O.P.No.2 personally or through telephone for settlement of his claim. The complainant at the time of purchasing vehicle executed an agreement with O.P.No.2 and obtained financial assistance. As per the agreement executed between the complainant and the O.P.No.2, the complainant is liable to pay monthly installments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them. The O.P.No.2 refer the matter to the Arbitrator for further action as per agreement. After the accident, the complainant did not contact the O.P.No.2 in respect of his claim and the O.P. No.2 has no concern with the above matter. No cause of action has arisen against the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service and the act of the O.P.No.2 did not come in the category of unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the O.P.No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The complainant has filed documents. The documents are photocopy of the insurance policy dated 26.07.2013 issued by Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., receipt dated 26.04.2014 issued by Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Estimate / Quotation dated 28.04.2014 given by // 8 // Shrivam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Terms and conditions (Customer Declaration), letter to carry out vehicle without repairing, letter dated 07.05.2014 sent by the complainant to the Branch Manager, Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, letter dated 08.05.2013 sent by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant, letter dated 15.05.2014 sent by the complainant to Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, letter dated 17.07.2014 sent by O.P.No.1 to the complainant, letter dated 20.10.2014 sent by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant, letter dated 05.11.2014 sent by the complainant to the OPs, letter dated 05.11.2014 sent by the complainant to The Branch Manager, Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Bilaspur (C.G.), postal receipts, letter dated23.03.2015 sent by O.P.No.1 to Shri T.R. Burman (Retired DJ).
6. Smt. Jaya Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the vehicle trailer bearing registration No.C.G.10-C/6131 was insured by the O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 for the period from 05.08.2013 to 04.08.2014. The above trailer was dashed with a tree and was completely damaged. No harm has been caused to any person, therefore, lodging of First Information Report before concerned Police Station, is not required. The intimation regarding the same was given to the OPs along with claim form and relevant documents. As per instructions of the officers of the O.P.No.1, Shri Paritosh Kumar Singh, the authorised Surveyor of the O.P.No.1 conducted survey and he illegally demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
// 9 // from the complainant for settlement of claim, but the complainant expressed his inability and made a written complaint before the O.P.No.1 on 07.05.2014. Thereafter another Surveyor was appointed by the O.P.No.1. The vehicle was completely damaged. Shivam Motors, who is authorised dealer and service agency of the above vehicle gave estimate of Rs.19,84,021/- in respect of the repairing of the vehicle and the estimated repairing cost of the trolley of trailer (dala) is Rs.7,00,000/-. It means that the vehicle in question was completely damaged and comes within total loss, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation on the basis of Insured Declared Value of the vehicle, but the O.P.No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant and thus committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint. The complainant is entitled to get reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
7. Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.1 has argued that the claim of the complainant has not been finally settled by the O.P.No.1 because relevant documents have not submitted by the complainant and it is not possible for the Insurance Company to finally settle the claim for want of letter of indemnity and letter of subrogation and other relevant documents. The complaint has been filed without accrual of cause of action, hence prima facie the same is liable to be dismissed. The damage to the vehicle is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The // 10 // O.P.No.1 requested the complainant to submit documents for final survey, but the complainant did not submit relevant documents, therefore, the claimant of the complainant has not been settled, hence the complaint is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed.
8. None appeared for the O.P.No.2 before us on 22.07.2016 when the case is fixed for final arguments.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant and O.P.No.1 and have perused the documents filed in the case.
10. It is not disputed that vehicle trailer bearing registration No.C.G.10-C/6131 is owned by the complainant and the same was insured with the O.P.No.1 for the period from 05.08.2013 to 04.08.2014. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.22,30,500/-. 11 The complainant has filed letter dated 08.05.2013, which sent by the O.P.No.1 to Mr. Vaibhav Singh, (complainant) in which it is mentioned thus :-
".......Since your vehicle date of loss is 16/04/14 and now its almost nearing 22 days and you have not commenced repairs of your vehicle hence you are requested to start repairs of vehicle immediately and dismantle the vehicle before 15/04/14 failing of which we will presume that you are no more interested in pursuing the claim and we will conclude your claim as CLOSED".
// 11 //
12. The complainant has filed letter dated 17.07.2014 which was sent by the O.P.No.1 to Mr. Vaibhav Singh, (complainant) in which it is mentioned thus :-
".......
But till date you have not start the vehicle repairing. Therefore, under the given circumstances we express our inability to consider your claim. We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. While expressing our inability to pay this claim due to the above mentioned reason, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly."
13. The complainant has filed letter dated 20.10.2014 which was sent by the O.P.No.1 to Mr. Vaibhav Singh, (complainant) in which it is mentioned thus :-
"With regard to the above mentioned policy number, Please refer our reg ad letters, 1st reminder letter 08.05.2014, 2nd reminder letter
14.05.2014 and 3rd reminder letter on 09/06/2014 also last letter on 17/07/2014 in which we have requested you to provide the below mentioned documents to our final surveyor.
Repair the vehicle and produce for Re-Inspection along with old parts.
Repair invoice of vehicle.
And also requested you to re-inspect your vehicle after completing repairing so that we can proceed further for assessing the loss of your vehicle on repair basis.
We have already shared assessment with you and asked to start repair work but till date you have not started the vehicle repairing.
// 12 // Therefore, under the given circumstances we express our inability to consider you claim and will close and NO claim as reason as Vehicle repaired not commenced. We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. While expressing our inability to pay this claim due to the above mentioned reason, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly. Please revert with the confirmation of repair started within 7 days otherwise we will presume that you are not interested to take this claim."
14. Shri Anand Mohan Goswami, was appointed as Surveyor by the O.P. No.1, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report to the Insurance Company. In his Survey Report dated 15.09.2014, the Surveyor mentioned thus :-
"SETTLEMENT OF LOSSES : After completion of the photographic works and the observations of damages, the estimate was taken up with Insured's rep/Repairer. During discussions Insured shown his total reluctancy in getting the vehicle dismantled and repaired and was adamant for Total Loss settlement."
15. The O.P.No.1 specifically pleaded that the claim of the complainant has not yet been rejected by the O.P.No.1 and Surveyor has not mentioned regarding total loss. The Surveyor only assessed net loss to the tune of Rs2,99,491/-. The O.P.No.1 also pleaded that the complainant is required to start repairing of the vehicle and only after that the claim can be proceeded and the relevant documents has not // 13 // been submitted by the complainant, therefore, his claim could not be settled.
16. It appears that the claim of the complainant has not yet been settled by the O.P.No.1, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the complainant to first of all submit his claim along with relevant documents before the O.P.No.1 and the O.P. No.1 will decide his claim. If the complainant will not satisfy with the decision of the O.P.no.1, the complainant can again file fresh complaint before this Commission.
17. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with a direction that the complainant will file claim along with relevant documents before O.P.No.1 within 2 months from the date of this order and the O.P.No.1 will decide the claim of the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of the claim. If the complainant will not satisfy with the decision of the O.P.No.1, then the complainant can again file fresh complaint before this Commission. No order as to the cost of this compliant.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 4/08/2016 04 /08/2016