Delhi

East Delhi

CC/12/2013

MANJU JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMPETENT AUTO - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  12/13

Ms. Manju Jain

W/o Shri Sampat Kumar Jain

R/o H.No.1/2322B

Ramnagar, Gali No. 7

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032                                           ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd..

Plot No. 3, Gazipur, Delhi – 110 096

 

2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

4^th and 5^th Floor, IFFCO Twower

Plot No. 3, Sector – 29

Gurgaon – 122 001

 

3. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

IFFCO Sadan, CI Distt. Centre

Saket, New Delhi – 110 017

 

4. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Customer Service Centre – Delhi NCR

F.A.I. Building, 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg

Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110 067                  …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 07.01.2013

Judgement Reserved on : 01.12.2017

Judgement Passed on: 04.12.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Ms. Manju Jain against Competent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.(OP-1) and IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that complainant Ms. Manju Jain took car accident policy no. 500076113 dated 30.11.2010 by paying an amount of Rs. 11,526/- from IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) for her car model Wagon R, New LxiBS4, Registration no. HR29Y7529/Faridabad, Engine no. 1328042 which was renewed vide policy no. 88015851 issued on 29.11.2012 and paid premium amount of Rs. 8,495/-.  The period of insurance was from 30.11.2011 to 29.11.2012.

          She met with an accident at Ghaziabad on 06.10.2012 and approached the authorized dealer of Maruti i.e. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., Ghazipur, Delhi for necessary services.  M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. (OP-1) made estimate for a sum of Rs. 33,297.70/- for the total physical damage of the car.  The same was sent to the insurance company directly for necessary action.  The company sent a letter of dated 19.10.2012 stating that the damages reported and noticed were pre-existing and do not correlate with the cause and nature of accident.  It has been stated that the defendant by doing so have shown deficiency in services. 

          A legal notice of dated 03.12.2012 was also sent regarding deficiency in services, thus, the complainant have prayed for the cost of the claim of Rs. 33,297.70/-; pre-liquidated damages to the tune of Rs. 47,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant to hire the services of a car rental company; Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and social embarrassment and Rs. 15,000/- cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply, filed on behalf of Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that the grievance of the complainant was against the insurance company; they have no role in passing or rejection of the insurance claim; they were merely the dealers of the vehicle manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  They have admitted that the complainant visited their workshop on 10.10.2012 for body repair.  They applied for insurance claim on behalf of the complainant which was declined by the insurance company.  Thus, they have denied their liability in any manner.

          In the reply, filed on behalf of IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that no accident as alleged by the complainant took place.  The “Motor Final Survey Report” of the surveyor clearly establishes that the damages found in the body of the car predate the insurance policy issued by the OPs.  The said vehicle was taken for service by the complainant in the workshop of OP-1 on 30.11.2010 i.e. one year prior to the insurance of the vehicle and there in the job card of said date, damages have been clearly noted which required replacement (1) front bumber (2) left head light (3) bonnet/hood (4) front cross member (5) radiator (6) A/C compressor & (7) fender lining. 

          None of these damages were got repaired by the complainant in November 2010 and thus, the complainant deliberately permitted these damages to exacerbate.  Thus, in brief, they have stated that all the damages were pre-existing which were not covered under the insurance policy.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas. 

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited documents such as copy of insurance policy (Exhibit-1), job card (Exhibit-2), copy of estimate of Competent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Exhibit-3), copy of letter of insurance company (Exhibit-4) and legal notice (Exhibit-5). 

          M/s. Competent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  (OP-1) have examined Col. P.B. Suri, General Manager who have also deposed on affidavit. He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in their WS.

          M/s. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. have examined Shri Rajeev Choudhary, their attorney.  He has also deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts which they have taken in their WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of survey report and job card (Exhibit no. 1 and 2).

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company as neither the complainant nor counsel for OP-1 have appeared and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company that the claim was rejected on the ground that the damages found in the body of the car were pre-existing and no accident has taken place.

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company, a look has to be made to the survey report (Ex. 1) which have been exhibited in the testimony of           Shri Rajeev Choudhary, their attorney.  In the report, date of accident has been stated as 06.10.2012 which was reported on 11.10.2012.  It has been stated in the report that “all the damages were found old and badly rusted”.  In the estimate, submitted by OP-1 to the insurance company, it has been noticed that the vehicle was having damaged on front bumper, cross member, condenser assembly etc. etc.  These damages were also reported in the vehicle history which was done through job card dated 19.10.2011.  Thus, the fact remains that the survey report submitted by the surveyor to the insurance company cannot be doubted as the damages to the vehicle were prior to the date of accident.  Therefore, the rejection of the claim by the insurance company was justified.  Hence this complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.           

         Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President