Complaint No: 228 of 2019.

                                                                    Date of Institution: 11.07.2019.

                                                                           Date of order: 03.10.2023.

Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh.Tilak Raj, R/o VPO Kahnuwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

                                                                                    .....Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

             VERSUS

1.       Maruti Authorized Service Centre, Babri, through its General Manager, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

2.       National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathankot Division, Gurdaspur Road, Near Bus Stand, Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot, Punjab.

                                                                                                                          ….Opposite parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.K.S.Dhillon, Advocate.

             For the Opposite party No.2: Sh.Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocate.            

             Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Gulshan Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Maruti Authorized Service Centre etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was the owner of Swift New Vdi (o) BS IV bearing Registration No.PB-06-AN-6309 which was fully insured by the Opposite Parties from 22 September 2018 to 21 September 2019. It is further pleaded that the Opposite Parties received a premium of Rs.16,862/- from the complainant for the insurance of the vehicle in which IDV value was assessed as Rs.4,57,290/- and Add-on coverage were also deducted which included return to invoice, protect add-on cover, engine protect and Rs.915/- each was paid for this purpose by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. It is further pleaded that the return to invoice cover or RTI is an add-on cover offered by the insurers today in India. It is further pleaded that this optional rider when availed covers the gap between the vehicle's insured Declared value (IDV) and the original cost of the Car at the time of purchase and the premium for RTI is 10% more than the comprehensive insurance cover. It is further pleaded that complainant has paid Add-on premiums in the insurance Policy No. 40150031181142429545 dated 21 September 2018 and the return to invoice comes into play when the car has been damaged beyond repair, as a result of mishap, under this cover, the insured receives the complete compensation that equals to the vehicle's original invoice value, thus protecting the insured from the financial loss, if the car is deemed as a total loss as has happened in this case.  It is further pleaded that regular wear and tear of the vehicle, small dents or cracks are not covered under this rider. It is further pleaded that this add-on cover is to enhance the motor insurance and protect against unforeseen liabilities due to total loss of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that as per the IRDA instructions when a policy holder raises a claim before disbursing the claim amount, the insurer assesses the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle or in other words the current market value of the Car. It is further pleaded that policy holder will get compensation equivalent to the value of the vehicle when it was first bought, which the Opposite Parties have not done. It is further pleaded that vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 21.03.2019 and there was total loss of the vehicle as assessed by the Opposite Party No. 1, but the invoice add-on value was not assessed which is unfair practice and deficiency in services by the Opposite Parties despite of receiving the premium of invoice protect add-on of Rs.915/-. It is further pleaded that the present invoice cover of Swift Car Vdi option is Rs.8,49,000/- and only Rs.5,87,982/- was paid. It is further pleaded that a difference of Rs.2,61,018/- which has been withheld by the Opposite Parties. It is further pleaded that complainant suffered business loss due to delay of claim and withheld of RTI invoice by the Opposite Parties. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

        On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the on road value of the equivalent model of Swift Car option or difference of Rs.2,61,018/- alongwith interest on the same from the date of accident to the date of payment and further to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of business loss and Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and harassment and Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses, alongwith interest @18% per annum may be also awarded to the complainant from the date of accident till its realization, in the interest of justice.

3.       Opposite party No. 1 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 17.09.2019.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that all allegations made in the complaint, which are not specifically denied herein, are denied being false and baseless. It is further pleaded that complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and at the very outset the replying opposite party denies all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the extent it is expressly admitted therein. It is further pleaded that non-traversal of any paragraph should be read as categorical denial and the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable against replying opposite party and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon'ble Commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the replying opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary cost. It is further pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to filed the present complaint and the insurance is a contract between the two parties and both the parties are bound with the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that scope of the terms and conditions cannot be increased or decreased and the insurance is a contract based on utmost good faith and it is the duty of the insured to disclose all the material facts and any misrepresentation on the part of the insured is fatal one and that the complainant has not come in this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. It is further pleaded that the vehicle No. PB-06-AN-6309 was insured with opposite parties vide policy No.40150031191194611434 effective from 22.09.2018 to 21.09.2019 from the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 21.03.2019 and the complainant informed the opposite party on 25.03.2019. It is further pleaded that thereafter the opposite party deputed V.K. Mehta Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar for assessing the loss of the vehicle and  V.K. Mehta Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar submitted his preliminary survey report on 30.04.2019, 20­.05.2019 and Motor (Final) Survey Report on 01.07.2019 and the said V.K. Mehta Insurance Surveyor & Loss assessor Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar Assessed the Net liability of Rs.5,87,982/- on total loss basis in his report while taking IDV of vehicle Rs.4,57,290/- and also assessed add-on value of Rs.1,14,467/- the difference between the purchase invoice and IDV. It is further pleaded that the surveyor also added registration charges OD premium and road tax for two years i.e. Rs.17,225/- as add-on value. It is further pleaded that  Rs.1,31,692/- was assessed as add-on value at the time of assessment of the claim by the V.K. Mehta Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar as per terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further pleaded that the complainant is telling lie by claiming that add-on value was not assessed at the time of settlement of the claim. It is further pleaded that there is no unfair practice and deficiency in services by the opposite party while settling the claim of complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant agreed with the settlement of the claim and given consent letter duly attested by Notary dated 25.06.2019 after agreed with the settled claim. It was further pleaded that it is wrong that the present invoice cover of Swift Car Vdi option is Rs.8,49,000/- and only Rs.5,87,982/- was paid. It is further wrong that a difference of Rs.2,61,018/- has been withheld by the opposite party. It is further pleaded that  true facts are the complainant purchase the vehicle through CSD and the value of the vehicle as per purchase invoice (CSD) was Rs.5,71,757/- and not Rs.8,49,000/- as alleged by the complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party has duly assessed add on value at the time of settling the claim of the complainant as per terms & conditions of the policy.

          On merits, the opposite party No. 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gulshan Kumar, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 along with other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has filed documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 alongwith reply.

7.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

8.       Written arguments filed both by the parties.

9.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had got his car insured from the opposite parties as per which the IDV was assessed as Rs.4,57,290/- and addon coverage were also deducted which included return to invoice, protect addon cover, engine protect and Rs.915/- each was paid for this purpose by the complainant. It is further argued that this optional rider when availed covers the gap between the vehicle's insured declared value and the original cost of the car at the time of purchase. It is further argued that vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 21.03.2019 and there was total loss to the vehicle but inspite of the fact that the present invoice cover of the car is Rs.8,49,000/- but the opposite parties paid Rs.5,87,982/- to the complainant. It is further argued that failure to pay the difference amount of Rs.2,61,018/- amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10.     Opposite party No.1 remained exparte.

11.     Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that on receiving intimation about the accident Mr.V.K.Mehta surveyor was deputed who submitted his preliminary survey report on 30.04.2019 and 20.05.2019 and motor vehicle survey report on 01.07.2019. It is further argued that net loss of Rs.5,87,982/- on total loss basis was assessed while taking IDV of the vehicle as  Rs.4,57,290/- and addon value of Rs.1,14,467/- as difference between the purchase invoice and IDV. It is further argued that complainant had purchased a car through CSD and value of the car as per purchase invoice CSD was Rs.5,71,757/- and not Rs.8,49,000/-, as such the amount was paid as per the report of the surveyor and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

12.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of policy of insurance Ex.C2 as per which IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,57,290/-, copy of receipt Ex.C4 whereas on the other hand opposite party No.2 has placed on record copy of report of surveyor Ex.OP-1, copy of claim intimation letter Ex.OP-2 and copy of consent letter Ex.OP-3. The plea of the complainant that invoice cover of the car is Rs.8,49,000/- but perusal of policy of insurance shows the IDV of the vehicle as Rs.4,57,290/. Complainant has not placed on record invoice of the car to prove this fact that value of the car i.e. invoice cover is Rs.8,49,000/-. We have gone through the report of surveyor Ex.OP-1 as per which the IDV of the vehicle ha been taken as Rs.4,57,290/- as per the policy and value of the vehicle as per purchase invoice CSD Rs.5,71,757/- and difference between purchase invoice and IDV i.e. Rs.1,14,467/-, as such we do not find any ground or reason to ignore the report of the surveyor Ex.OP-1. Moreover, complainant has himself given consent Ex.OP-3 as per which complainant has himself agreed to accept sum of Rs.2,97,982/- as mutually negotiated full and final settlement on nett off salvage basis with RC. As such after having himself consented for settlement and having accepted the report of the surveyor and assessment as correct we do not any merit in the present complaint.

13.     Accordingly, present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs. 

14.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                              

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President. 

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 03, 2023                                                        Member.

*YP*