BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 13 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 12.1.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 06.07.2011 |
Ravi Kumar H. No. 3040, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh. …..Complainant V E R S U S 1] M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.139-140, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. 2] M/s Charisma Gold Wheels Pvt. Ltd. 7 Indl. Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. ……Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Sukhdarshan Singh, Counsel for complainant Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP-1 Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2. --- PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased new Hyundai I-10 Car from OP No.2 on 19.4.2010. The complainant got it insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.OG-11-1201-1801-00000509 for the period 19.4.2010 to 18.4.2011. The said vehicle met with an accident on 1.6.2010. The OP No.2 estimated the loss for Rs.1 lac. The complainant intimated about the accident to OP-1 who deputed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.8296/- ignoring the internal damages against the loss prepared by the OP No.2. According to the complainant, OP-1 vide letter dated 15.7.2001 illegally repudiated the claim, hence, this complaint. 2. OP No.1 in its reply admitted the facts with regard to the issuance of the insurance policy and the accident to the vehicle in question. It has been pleaded that on receipt of the information regarding the accident, the surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs.8296.35. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had failed to submit the original bills of repairs for the parts purchased and the complainant had also failed to produce the repaired vehicle for re-inspection accordingly the claim was rightly repudiated. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua it. 3. In its separate written statement, OP-2 pleaded that the entire grouse and relief sought in the complaint is against the OP No.1, thus no case is made out against OP No.2. All other allegations have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The claim has been repudiated by the insurance company vide repudiation letter dated 15.07.2010(Annexure R-1) on the ground that the complainant has not fulfilled the essential requirements regarding re-inspection of the repaired vehicle along with old parts, original bills of repairs and part purchased. 7. The point to be considered as to whether the repudiation of the claim on the ground stated in the repudiation letter dated 15.07.2010(Annexure R-1) is legal. The answer to this is in negative. 8. Admittedly, the complainant got the vehicle in question insured with OP-1 for the period from 19.04.2010 to 18.04.2011. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle met with an accident on 01.06.2010. The OP-1 was intimated about the accident who in turn appointed surveyor for assessment of the loss. 9. Undisputedly, the complainant intimated the OP-1 with regard to the accident of the vehicle in question who in turn appointed the surveyor also. The insurance company sent letter dated 07.07.2010 (Annexure R-2) to the complainant, stating therein, that the claim has been assessed for 8296/-, so he was asked for re-inspection of the repaired vehicle along with old parts, original bills of repairs and part purchased. To us it appears that it is not the duty of the complainant to produce the repaired vehicle for re-inspection along with old parts, original bills of repairs and part purchased. Rather, it is the duty of the OP-1 to inspect the repaired vehicle of itsown and thereafter to process the claim and assess the damage to the vehicle. It is not the case of the OP-1 that the complainant is not cooperating and allowing the re-inspection of the repaired vehicle along with old parts and he is also not producing the original bills of repairs for parts purchased. So, we are of the considered opinion that the repudiation of the claim on this count is illegal and cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny. 10. The final survey report is dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure R-3) qua which the loss to the vehicle has been assessed to the tune of Rs.8296.35 whereas the complainant has placed on record the bills of repairs at page 24 to 27 and the payment has been made to M/s Charisma Gold Wheels Pvt. Ltd. 7 Indl. Area, Phase I, Chandigarh(OP-2) qua receipts at page 21 and 22 to the tune of Rs.15000/- and Rs.39,549/- respectively to prove the loss and the amount spent on the repair of the vehicle in question. 11. Since the complainant has produced on record the receipts at page 21 and 22 qua which he paid the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.39,549/- respectively to M/s Charisma Gold Wheels Pvt. Ltd. 7 Indl. Area, Phase I, Chandigarh on account of repair of the vehicle in question, therefore, the report of the surveyor qua Annexure R-3 stands rebutted. 12. However, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OP-2, therefore, the complaint qua oP-2 stands dismissed. 13. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.54,549/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 14. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | 06.07.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D.Goel] | | Member | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
