Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 385.
Instituted on : 03.07.2017.
Decided on : 19.06.2019.
Ram Mehar age 77 years, s/o Sh. Jai Lal R/o H.No.86, Sector-14, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Block No.4, 7th Floor, DLF Towers, 15, Shivaji Marg, Sonipat-131001 through its Divisional Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006(India) Through its Divisional Manager.
- Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd., O/o Near CSD Canteen, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Director Amit Badhwar.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. M.K.Munjal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh.Amit Bhardwaj Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained insurance policy of his vehicle Make-Volkswagen-Vento, bearing Registration No.HR-12S-5986 from the opposite party No.1 vide policy No.OG-16-1136-1801-00000414 on dated 02.01.2016 for the period 02.01.2016 to 01.01.2017. That the above said vehicle had met with an accident and accordingly the same was sent for necessary repairs on 25.06.2016 to the respondent No.3. That the policy in question was a cashless policy. That all the required papers as asked by the respondent no.3 were submitted with the respondent no.3 and who after got surveying the vehicle in question , deposited all the required and relevant papers with the Insurance company i.e. respondents no.1 and 2. After that the car was handed over to the complainant by the respondent no.3 by stating that the complainant will get indemnify the amount of the bill from the respondents no.1 & 2. That now suddenly the respondent no.3 had sent a legal notice for recovery of the amount of the bill of repair amounting to Rs.163593/- alongwith interest. That after receiving the alleged notice, it has come to the knowledge of the complainant that the own damage claim of the complainant has not been settled by the respondent no.1 & 2 despite submitting the required documents. That complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to make the payment of alleged amount but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 & 2 may kindly be directed to pay Rs.163593/- on account of repair charges alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of its accrual to till its realization directly to the respondent no.3 and also to pay compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that the answering opposite party appointed a surveyor for assessment of loss of vehicle no.HR-12S-5986. The answering respondent observed on perusal of report submitted by the surveyor that the damages are not co-related with the cause of accident. That respondent insurance company intimated to complainant vide letter dated 7th July 2016 and 19.07.2016 to clarify the query to these letters. But the complainant not submitted the reply and documents. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 27 July 2016. It is also submitted that there is delay of 3 days in intimating the insurance company about the alleged loss. That the claim has been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the car was received by respondent No.3 and the same was repaired and delivered to the complainant on 12.07.2019 in O.K. condition. That the complainant took the car on 12.07.2016 with the oral promise to the respondent No.3 that he will pay the amount standing towards him within a week. The bill of repair had become of Rs.163593/-. That despite several requests of the answering opposite party to pay the above said amount, the complainant did not pay the amount. As such a legal notice dated 29.03.3018 was sent to the complainant. But no sincere efforts were made by the complainant to pay the alleged amount. That complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.01.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.04.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/A to Ex.R3/B and has closed his evidence on dated 04.04.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the vehicle of the complainant was repaired by the respondent no.3 and he charged an amount of Rs.163593/- from the complainant for the repair of vehicle in question. But the complainant had not paid this amount to the respondent no.3 and had taken his vehicle from the respondent no.3 for his personal use. The respondent no.3 issued a legal notice through his counsel Sh. Vijender Singh Rathi for payment of amount of Rs.163593/- to the complainant on dated 29.03.2017. Meaning thereby, the alleged amount has not been paid by the complainant to the respondent no.3. The complainant’s version is that he had insured his vehicle from the respondent no. 1 & 2 and he has a comprehensive policy and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the amount of repair be paid by the respondent no.1 & 2 to the respondent no.3.
7. In the present case, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent no. 1& 2 vide letter Ex.R3 on the ground that the vehicle was removed from the spot without intimation to the respondent no.1 & 2, there is a substantial and unexplained delay between the date of accident and intimation to the insurance company regarding the loss. As per surveyor, the damage to the vehicle does not co-relate with the cause of loss and was found false and fabricated. We have observed all the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case, there was no casualty or third party loss in the accident so the spot survey is not mandatory or required as per IRDA instructions. So the objection raised by the respondent insurance company in the letters dated 19.07.2016 and 07.07.2016 vide Ex.R3 & Ex.R4 is turned down. Regarding the second objection i.e. the insurance company was informed regarding the loss belatedly after 3 days is also not considerable in view of law laid down in order dated 20.09.2018 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. The respondent also taken objection that the damage in the vehicle does not co-relate with the cause of loss. But the respondent officials failed to prove any authenticated and technical report or any document to prove that the damage is not co-related with the cause of loss. So this objection is also turned down.
8. In the present case the complainant has placed on record a bill of payment issued by the respondent no.3 Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd. Ex.C8. The perusal of this document itself shows that the complainant should pay an amount of Rs.163593/- as repair cost and as per Ex.C8, the respondent No.3 prepared the bill after considering the value of parts as Rs.124492.76 and labour charges as Rs.39100/-. We have also perused the survey report placed on record by the respondent insurance company as Ex.R5. Perusal of this document shows that the surveyor Sh. Virender Kumar has assessed the loss in the vehicle of the complainant as Rs.84532/-. As per the surveyor, he has sanctioned an amount of Rs.113024/- on account of parts after deducting the depreciation @ 35% on metal parts and 50% on rubber parts as Rs.45913/-, the net loss on account of parts comes to Rs.67111/-(Rs.113024/- less Rs.45913/-as deprreciation) i.e. Meaning thereby, the surveyor has assessed the loss of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the policy amount to Rs.67111/- on account of parts. Now come upon the labour charges. As per surveyor he assessed labour charges as Rs.21995/- whereas as per the bill Ex.C8, respondent no.3 billed Rs.39100/- on account of labour charges. As per the terms and condition of the policy, the complainant is entitled for the whole amount of labour charges. In this way, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.67111/- on account of parts plus Rs.39100/- on account of labour charges. i.e. total Rs.106211/-. As per the complainant, he has not paid the repair charges to the respondent no.3 till date.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.106211/-(Rupees one lac six thousand two hundred and eleven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization to the opposite party No.3 and also direct the opposite party no.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.06.2019.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
