BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pankaj Chanana, son of Sh.Raghubir Chanana, Resident of H.No.14, Sector 4, Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO No.139-140, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2]  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Managing Director, Head Office : GE-Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006.

3]  Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (KLG Hyundai) through its Prop. 181/3-B, Industrial 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.Nitin Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3.

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,MEMBER

         The car of the complainant bearing Regd. No.HR-04-C-9393 (Ann.C-1) duly insured with OP Insurance Company vide Cover Note Ann.C-2 from 29.8.2010 to 28.8.2011, met with an accident on 17.1.2011, in which it was badly damaged.  It was intimated to OP-2 on their toll free number. On the advice of OP-1, the damaged vehicle was taken to OP-3 (Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh), who is an authorized dealer, for repairs under cashless facility.  The car was towed to OP-3 by paying Rs.2500/- as towing charges. Then complainant visited OP-3 on 16.3.2011 for taking delivery of the repaired car, where he was told to pay Rs.1,12,000/- for repairs, against the total repairs charges of Rs.3,05,388/- (Ann.C-3), on the pretext that the Insurance Company has deducted Rs.1,12,2000/- from the credit invoice on account of depreciation.  The complainant paid under protest an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- vide Ann.C-4, dated 16.3.2011. Then complainant demanded Survey Report from OP Insurance Company but the OPs vide letter dated 19.5.2011 (Ann.C-5) refused to provide the information and instead sent the Claim Amount Confirmation Note, dated 25.3.2011 (Ann.C-6) wherefrom the complainant came to now that the Surveyor had assessed Rs.99,761/- as depreciation on the spare parts.  It is averred that since the vehicle was only four months old at the time of accident, hence the deduction of depreciation from the claim amount is illegal and arbitrary.  A legal notice (Ann.C-7) was sent to OPs but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OPs as deficiency in service. 

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 in its reply, while admitted the factual matrix of the case, have stated that upon the receipt of information of loss, the Surveyor was appointed, who after physically inspecting the vehicle vis-à-vis terms & conditions of the insurance policy, gave his report dated 19.3.2011, as per which the admissible amount was ordered to be released in favour of the repairer. As per the report (Annexure R-2) a sum of Rs.1,92,783/- was to be paid to the repairer and Rs.99,761/- was deducted towards depreciation. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       OP-3 also filed reply stating therein that the dispute in the present case is between the insured and insurer.  The answering OP has repaired the vehicle to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the bill generated after repair was to be paid either by the complainant or by the Insurance Company.  OP-3 charged as per the repairs done to the tune of Rs.3,05,383/- out of which the complainant had paid Rs.1,12,000/- and rest of the amount of Rs.1,92,783/- was to be paid by OP Insurance Company.  It is stated that the amount of Rs.2500/- as towing charges can be refunded to the complainant as an additional discount provided he pays the balance amount of Rs.600/- (Ann.OP-3/2 & OP-3/3).  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]       The contention of the complainant, in this complaint, is that the deduction of depreciation, made by the OPs from his claim amount, is illegal & arbitrary; as the insured vehicle was only four months old on the date of accident.  Therefore, no question of depreciation could arise.

7]       More so, the OPs had never supplied any terms & conditions of the insurance policy to the complainant with regard to the deduction of depreciation from the claim amount, whereas the OPs have charged the premium against full price of the new vehicle. Therefore, the deduction of depreciation to the tune of Rs.1,12,000/- (Annexure C-4), is illegal and unjustified on the part of OPs, as the car was insured under cashless policy.

8]       A document, as a matter of evidence, has been placed on record by the complainant i.e. Annexure C-2 (Page 17), which is the Motor Vehicle Cover Note.  In this document, under the heading IMPORTANT, the complainant has agreed as under:-

IMPORTANT:   I/We hereby agree and undertake to receive one page policy document, without enclosing the terms and conditions of policy, and I hereby authorize company that all terms and conditions of policy can be displayed in the website of company.  The salient features of the policy, terms and conditions of this cover note have been explained to me/us in vernacular language, and I/we agree to the same.”

9]       This document has neither been controverted nor rebutted by the complainant.  Therefore, it is evidently clear that the justification made by the OPs that the terms & conditions of the policy, were well within the knowledge of the complainant, from which he cannot back-up/turned out.

10]      Another document at Page-33 shows the declaration made by the repairer.  It reads as under:-

             “Depreciation Amount: 99761.86

             Nett Amount Payable:  192783

(Parts + Labour)     

Declaration by Repairer:

We here by agree to release the vehicle to insured after repair as per the assessment shown below and after collecting the balance amount, if any, from the insured as full and final settlement.  We will not lay any further claims on the insurance company after the settlement.” 

11]      As a matter of record, OPs No.1 & 2 in their written statement, have admitted that the vehicle was duly insured and it met with an accident. But they denied the averment of the complainant that the terms & conditions of the policy were not supplied to him.  Furthermore, the admissible amount was ordered to be released in favour of the repairer, after making deduction towards depreciation, was stated by the OPs.   

12]      The OPs have categorically mentioned that the terms of the policy was supplied to the complainant. They further pleaded that the benefit of cashless facility was extended to the complainant, subject to the terms & conditions of the policy.

13]      The Report of the Surveyor has also been placed on record as Ann.R-2. The OPs have vehemently denied any deficiency in service on their part, as they have already released the admissible amount, as per terms & conditions of the policy. 

14]      The OPs, in additional evidence, have placed on record the terms & conditions of the policy as Annexure R-1.  In this document Ann.R-1 at Page-6, under heading PRIVATE CAR PACKAGE POLICY, under SECTION 1- LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED, it has been clearly mentioned:-

“1. The Company will indemnify the Insured against loss or damage to the Motor Car insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon;

             i………

Subject to a deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below in respect of parts replaced:

1.  For all rubber, nylon, plastic parts, tyre, battery & air bags 50%

2.  For fibre glass components 30%

3.  For all parts made of glass Nil

4.  …..”

15]     The said Section of the Private Car Package Policy is to be read along with document Ann.C-6 wherein at Page29, it has been made clear that the deduction with regard to RUBBER/PLASTIC parts had been made. 

16]      After perusing the documents placed on file and going into the merits of the case, we opine that the contention of the complainant do not hold water, whereas he himself has placed on file Annexure C-2, in which the terms & condition were crystal clear and the OPs cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on their part, as they have already fulfilled their legal obligation. So, there is no plausible justification on the part of complainant, therefore, the deduction made by the OPs was legally & fully justified.  Therefore, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.