Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 431
Instituted on : 02.09.2019
Decided on : 21.03.2024
Ankit Vats s/o Ramesh Vats age 25 years R/o 1252/21, Panditonwaligali, Prem Nagar, Hafed Chowk, Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office Address 1stFloor, Meghna Complex, ShilaByepass Chowk, Jasbeer colony, SonepatRoad, Rohtak.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd. through its Managing Director, Registered Office H Block, 1st floor, DhirubhaiAmbani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.GovindBalhara Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.SameerGambhir, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a policy bearing no.2013218231100002205 from the opposite party No.1 for his vehicle no.HR-19G-1728 valid from 20.12.2018 to 19.12.2019. On 13.05.2019 the alleged vehicle of the complainant got damaged due to attack by Ox and then collided with road divider. The complainant informed the opposite party on 15.05.2019 regarding the incident and also deposited estimate given by M/s Kalpana Motors Workshop against the damage repairing cost of said vehicle. Opposite party telephonically informed the complainant that the insurance company was unable to proceed with claim of Airbag hence consent letter to stuck off amount of Airbag from repairing amount of said insured vehicle was necessary. As per the request of opposite party complainant issued consent letter on 10.06.2019 in favour of opposite party and informed the opposite party to release the repairing amount excluding Airbag cost. On 20.06.2019 after repairing said damaged vehicle, final bills of Rs.88464/- was issued by M/s Kalpana Motor Workshop and the same were submitted to the opposite party. On 27.06.2019 opposite party sent a mail to the complainant and informed him that opposite party passed his claim for Rs.28621/- and to receive the same, complainant should file satisfaction declaration before the opposite party. Complainant requested the opposite party to release the repairing cost amount but they refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the repairing cost of insured vehicle i.e. Rs.88464/- as per insurance policy and also to pay compensation of Rs.300000/- on account of mental agony, harassment alongwith cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the opposite party has already paid the amount of Rs.25448/- dated 04.10.2019 to the complainant. The assessment of claim is mandatory on the basis of policy terms and conditions and as per the age of the vehicle, depreciation of parts of plastic and rubber and allowed and disallowed parts of repair. Mere production of estimate and bill does not entitle for any claim amount. Surveyor assessed the amount and the same has been duly paid by the opposite parties. The complainant submitted the consent letter in writing that if the company does not want to pay the claim of Airbag, then he will not have any objection nor will he take legal action on this subject. The claim assessed by the surveyor has already been paid by the opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation and litigation expenses. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed his evidence on dated 21.09.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite partieshas tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and closed his evidence on 29.07.2022.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.The present complaint was filed on 02.09.2019 and during the pendency of case, the claim amount of Rs.25448/- was paid by the opposite parties on 04.10.2019 The contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that complainant had given a consent in writing that if the company does not want to pay the claim of Airbag, then he will not have any objection nor will he take legal action on this subject and he will not raise any issue or dispute regarding the agreed assessment. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 24.05.2022 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First appeal no.62 of 2015 titled as Tarun Parekh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and judgment dated 01.03.2017 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Narender Kumar. We have perused the consent letter placed on record by the opposite parties as Ex.R7. Perusal of this document shows that the alleged consent was given by the complainant only for excluding the airbag from the assessment and to fix/repair the vehicle according to the estimate given by the workshop. No consent was given for accepting the claim assessed by the surveyor. Through this complaint the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.88464/- and has placed on record bills Ex.C8 to Ex.C11. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 and also perused the assessment sheet placed on record by both the parties as Ex.C12/Ex.R1. Perusal of bills shows that in fact the surveyor has wrongly mentioned the rate of parts in his assessment sheet. For example the rate of front dumper mentioned in Ex.C8 is Rs.1782/- whereas the surveyor has mentioned the original cost of the this part as Rs.1500/- and likewise cost of all the parts have been mentioned. Hence less amount of parts has been mentioned in the assessment sheet. Whereas the original bills are on higher side. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is also entitled for lump sum compensation on account of cost of parts and labour which we have assessed as Rs.10000/-. However, the law citedabove by ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of cost of parts and labour charges, to pay 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 within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
7. 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:
21.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
