Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/16/2018

Vijay - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	16/2018
Date of Institution	:	10.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	15.10.2018

 

                                       

                                               

Vijay son of Sh.Sudan Singh r/o H.No.1168, W.No.3, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 2263/64, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by Complainant in person.

                Sh.Sanjiv Arora, Advocate for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant got his car bearing registration No.HR-13J-7406 insured with the OP vide insurance policy valid for the period from 06.01.2017 to 05.01.2018 for the IDV of Rs.4 lacs against the premium of R.13020/-. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 04.10.2017 within the lane and there was no damage of life and property to anyone except the vehicle which was taken to Ambala Automobile India Ltd., Ambala City for repairs. He alleged to have incurred a sum of Rs.1,92,238/- on the repairs of the vehicle.  It has further been averred that the claim was denied by the OP being not submitted within the prescribed time limit. It has further been averred that he enquired about the claim at the Call Centre Number of the OP but to no effect.  It has further been averred that the vehicle was being driven by Sh.Yashpal Dahiya at the time of the accident. According to the complainant, the OP has adopted a very callous action. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its short reply, the OP pleaded that the complainant has failed to supply the requisite documents which were demanded vide letters dated 25.10.2017 and 2910.2017 (Annexures R-1 & R-2) and therefore, the claim was closed as No Claim vide letter dated 27.12.2016.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons stated herein above.  The only defence of the OP-Company is that the complainant has failed to furnish the documents as demanded vide letters dated 25.10.2017 & 29.10.2017 but this plea of the OP has been falsified by the complainant by drawing our attention to the e-mails dated 10.10.2017, 17.11.2017 and 18.11.2017 sent by M/s Ambala Automobiles India Ltd., Ambala Cantt to the OP whereby the requisite documents were sent and a request was also made to the OP to reopen the claim and allow it to carry out the repairs as it was already more than a month the car was lying with it.
5.          It is apt to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint, the OP wakes up from its slumber and placed on record a surveyor report  wherein the loss to the vehicle  in question was assessed to the tune of Rs.63,448/-. However, the complainant has opposed the same by stating that he is only entitled to the amount so incurred by him on the repairs of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,92,238/. 
6.         We have gone through the surveyor report placed on record by the OP.  In the said survey report,  the name of the surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.63,448/- has not been mentioned. It is also not clear from the report that as to whether the surveyor appointed by the OP is an IRDA approved /licensed surveyor.   The said report has neither been signed by the surveyor nor supported with any affidavit and as such the same is liable to be ignored.  According to the complainant, he incurred a sum of Rs.1,92,238/- on the repairs of the vehicle  and this fact has not been denied by the OP in its written statement  and as such the complainant is held entitled to the said amount.  The OP is, thus, proved to be deficient in rendering the services by not settling the genuine claim of the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under ;-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.1,92,238/- as  incurred by the complainant towards repairs of the vehicle in question.
2. To pay Rs.5,500/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.3,500/- as litigation expenses.

8.         This order be complied with by the OP, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 10.01.2018 till its actual payment besides litigation costs.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                                             sd/-

15.10.2018                                                    (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER