Haryana

Ambala

CC/144/2021

Anil Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future General India Inss Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Bansal

13 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case No.	:	144 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	22.03.2021
Date of decision	:	13.01.2023

Anil Goyal w/o Sh. Mohan Lal Goyal, R/o H.No. 195, Jalbera Road, near Rattangarh Colony, Ambala City,

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2^nd Floor BR Complex, 1 Jain Nagar, Ambala City, through its Manager.
2. Metro Motors 10^th Mile Stone GT Road, VPO Mohra, Ambala Cantt., through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Nikhil Handa, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.                            

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

a) To change/replace the items which the OP No.2 refused to replace the same or to pay the costs of those items to the complainant.

b) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

c) To pay Rs.11000/- as cost of litigation

                                      Or

Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Car TATA NEXON, bearing Registration No. HR 01AU-8044, bearing Chasis No. MAT 627224LLB04894, Engine No.REVTRNIIBZXK13383, Model 2020 from TATA authorized dealer Garyson Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana on 5.3.2020. The said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 at the time of its purchase, vide insurance policy No. TMA25369 dated 4.3.2020, which was valid for the period from 04.03.2020 to 03.03.2021. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.8.2020 near Zirakpur (Pb.) while coming from Chandigarh to Ambala, which fact was informed to OP No.1. The representative of OP No.1 visited the site of accident and further told the complainant to get the damages assessed of the accidental vehicle from OP No.2 being the authorized dealer of TATA Motors. OP No.2 assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.49,500/- vide its estimate dated 01.09.2020 in which the item-wise damage is mentioned. As per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the complainant is entitled to receive the entire damage cost, but OP No.2 changed/replaced the damaged items except ASSY Wind Screen, Windshield Adhesive AND Windshield glass cutting & fitting. The reasons for not replacing/changing these items were not disclosed to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant requested OP No.2 to replace the said items as the same are mentioned in the assessment list, but it refused to do so. The vehicle of the complainant was fully insured with OP No.1 and as per the insurance policy, the complainant is entitled to receive the full insurance amount towards the damages/accident caused to the vehicle of complainant. The complainant requested the OPs to do the needful, but despite repeated requests they failed to do so.   Legal notice dated 19.01.2021 served upon the OPs also did not yield any result.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action etc.  On merits, it has been stated that on account of claim form submitted by complainant, OP No.1 investigated the claim by hiring an Independent Surveyor Abhishek Sethi, for conducting survey of the insured vehicle to inspect the authenticity of Claim and its repair work, who submitted his report Annexure C-3 colly.  It was found that the complainant in his claim form mentioned that his vehicle got damaged from "Front and back side" only and did not mention the damage of windshield glass, its adhesive and cutting at all. However, the repair cost sheet prepared by OP No.2 includes the cost of the said parts (windshield and ancillary parts) of the insured Vehicle. A single accident that occurred on main highway road does not justified with the number of damages visible on Insured Vehicle encompassing that to on the opposite side of the impact borne by the vehicle. The complainant very mischievously raised a single claim for all the damages, which is enough to create reasonable amounts of doubts on his part. Hence, keeping in mind the above submission, OP No.2 has justifiably denied the claim amount for those extra damages. The complainant has accepted the Satisfaction/Discharge Voucher dated 10.09.2020 which states that he was satisfied with the services provided by the OPs. However, to the utter dismay of OP No.1, even after signing satisfaction/discharge voucher, the complainant has filed this complaint. OP No.1 has discharged all its liabilities and duties obligated towards complainant pertaining to all the rules and regulations of law and policy. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that the entire claim is against OP. No.1 only. The amount was received by OP No.2 from OP No.1 for the jobs, done in the accidental vehicle and it is for OP No.1 to explain the exact position about the passing of the demanded parts. It was only on the basis of survey report that the jobs were carried out in respect of the vehicle in question. It is for O.P. No.1 to indemnify the claim if any, as claimed by the complainant in the present compliant, because OP No.2, has been working as the service provider at the instance of OP No.1. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Nitin Tawre, Senior Executive Legal of OP No.1 i.e Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Gurvinder Singh, Service Manager of Metro Motor, Village Mohra, Ambala as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith document Annexure OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not making payment in respect of the damage caused to the windscreen of the vehicle in question in the accident, despite the fact that it was covered under the insurance policy in question, the OPs are committed deficiency in service and also indulged into unfair trade practice.
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that since the claim of the complainant was settled strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, and was based on the opinion of the surveyor appointed by it, whereafter, the complainant had also submitted his satisfaction note to that effect, as such, now he has no occasion to file the present complaint against it.  
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that the OP No.2 repaired the vehicle as per the directions of the insurance company, as such, it cannot be held deficient in providing service on any account.
10.           The question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the  complainant is entitled to any other amount, over and above the amount of Rs.49,524/-, which has been assessed by the Surveyor vide his reported dated 10.09.2020, Annexure OP-3 or not? It may be stated here that not even a single document has been placed on record by the complainant to rebut the opinion given by the Surveyor in his report, Annexure OP-3 to the effect that the damages to windshield glass of the vehicle in question are not relevant with cause of loss in the said accident.  In fact surveyor's report is the main document on which the insurance claim is settled. The complainant has not pointed out any discrepancy or lacunae in the report of the surveyor.  Hence without any reasons, the surveyor's report wherein it has been held that damages to windshield glass of the vehicle in question are not relevant with cause of loss in the said accident cannot be disregarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited &Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 507, has observed the following:-

"31. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assesses the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured.

 

11.           It is not out of place to mention here that, in the satisfaction/discharge voucher dated 10.09.2020, Annexure OP-5, having been executed by the complainant, it was clearly stated by him that the repairs to his vehicle in question have been carried out to his entire satisfaction and that the discharge of accounts of OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.49,524/- by OP No.1  is in full discharge of all claim, qua damage caused to the vehicle in the said accident. 
12.           Be that as it may, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 13.01.2023.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President