Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/12/2015

Kanwaljit Singh Bhinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	12 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	08.01.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	22.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Kanwaljit Singh Bhinder, R/o 138, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059, through its Manager.

 

2]  HDFC Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd., Ramon House, H. T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400020 through its Managing Director

 

3]  HDFC Ergo General Ins.Co. Ltd., SCO No.124-125, First Floor, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU PRESIDING MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Complainant in person.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Parties

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, his Audi A-6 Car, Model-2011 was insured with the OP Insurance Company from 10.01.2014 upto 09.01.2015 vide policy Ann.B.  Unfortunately, the said insured car of the complainant met with an accident on 8.5.2014 while he was going from Chandigarh to Patiala.  It is averred that on the next morning, the complainant took the car to the authorised dealer of Audi – Jaycee Automobile, Chandigarh and informed the Insurance Company, whereupon Sh.Dheeraj Singla, Surveyor, appointed by the OP Insurance Company, came and inspected the car.  It is also averred that after waiting for about one month, the complainant was conveyed that as per instructions from company, only replacement of damaged front wind screen has been allowed and not the other parts damaged in the accident.  The matter was taken up with the insurance company as well as its Grievance Cell through e-mail followed by final notice through regd.A.D., but to no avail.  As such, the complainant got the car repaired and made payment of Rs.1,44,020/- at his own level to Audi Chandigarh, under protest, against the Bumper to Bumper Policy Claim was amounting to Rs.1,67,017.33P.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the rejection of genuine claim of the complainant by the Opposite Parties Company as illegal and deficiency in service on their part.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question, receipt of the information about the damage/loss cause to the vehicle and appointment of Surveyor to assess the loss.  It is submitted that complainant submitted the claim form in which he gave the description about the accident that “while driving the car a stone hit front windshield glass, suddenly applied brake, rear coming vehicle hit the car from behind.”  It is submitted that the Surveyor allowed the loss to the tune of Rs.56,966.74 as per terms  & conditions of the policy.  The complainant also claimed the loss for “Rh rear view mirror, Rh rear door, RH quarter panel, Rh tail light” in the said accident. It is pleaded that the complainant satisfactorily failed to explain the detail of the said damages and thereafter, the claim of the complainant was denied vide letter dated 11.6.2014.  It is also pleaded that the Opposite Parties have no liability for the other damages as the same are not relates to the cause of accident.   It is asserted that the Opposite Parties have paid the claim for the damages which were found to be genuine, as per the cause of loss narrated in the claim form. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the complaint on the ground that he is the owner of an Audi-A6 Car, Model 2011, and was duly insured with the Opposite Parties for the period 10.1.2014 to 9.1.2015 vide policy Ann.B by paying premium amount of Rs.50,386/-. The said insurance cover was for zero depreciation from Bumper to Bumper.  The car of the complainant met with an accident on 8.5.2014 and the same was taken to authorised dealer of Audi i.e. Jaycee Automobiles, Chandigarh, where the surveyor Mr.Dheeraj Singla, inspected the vehicle and on his instructions, the repair work was started to be done.  An estimate of Rs.1,67,017/- was prepared and finally, a bill of Rs.1,44,020/- was raised against the total repair of the car. 

6]       On the other hand, the complainant claims that an amount of Rs.56,966.74 was offered by the Opposite Parties on 30.6.2014 towards the total settlement of the claim of the complainant, to which the complainant refused to accept and returned the cheque through regd. post along with his protect letter.  On not receiving any reply from the Opposite Parties, a legal notice too was served upon them, but that too remained unanswered.  Thus, leading to the present complaint. 

 

7]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant has held their ground that the surveyor duly appointed by them had assessed the loss to the vehicle of the complainant and on the basis of the surveyor’s report, the only amount which was payable to the complainant was offered, which he refused to accept. The Opposite Parties claiming no deficiency in service on their part have placed on record the surveyor’s report Ann.R-4 and have claimed that on account of the Surveyor’s opinion, only the damage to the wind screen was allowed as the same was claimed to be matching with the actual damage and ignoring the rest of the claim of the complainant.  Only partly claim amount as assessed was offered. 

 

8]       We have gone through the contents of the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that when the Surveyor Mr.Dheeraj Singla, had enquired about the happening of the accident, the same was explained to him by the complainant claiming that while going to Patiala on its way, a stone hit the windscreen of the vehicle and during the process of controlling the vehicle, the same was hit by another vehicle from rare, which also scraped its right side, leading to the damage to right hand side rare mirror, right side tail lamp, right side of front & rare door, rare bumper, right side inner panels, right side cowl trim and cowl panel trim etc.  The Surveyor after listening to the details of the manner in which the accident had happened, preferred to mention in his survey report under Clause-9 Details of Assessment and Recommendations “(iii) – At the time of survey, it was observed that the cause of accident was not matching with the actual damages.  Only loss to Windscreen was matching with the cause of accident given by the insured and hence the same was allowed”, and in the Column of Remarks, the same is found repeated in verbatim.

 

9]       We are of the considered opinion that though the Opposite Parties had appointed the surveyor Mr.Dheeraj Singla to assess the loss of the complainant, but the surveyor report, presented by the Surveyor, has only mentioned that the loss to the windscreen matched with the cause of accident, as explained by the complainant and other losses to the vehicle did not match with the cause of accident, therefore the same were not payable.  The Surveyor while giving such opinion did not differentiate in the manner in which the entire loss to the vehicle was on account of two different actions i.e. hitting of the bolder with the windscreen, which was allowed and the striking of complainant vehicle by another vehicle coming from rare, which also scraped its right side completely i.e. the surveyor should have categorically mentioned that such kind of loss could have never happened, as if there was no other vehicle trailing the vehicle of the complainant. The surveyor was not a witness to the happening of the accident nor he had recommended an investigation with regard to the location, timing or any other reason, which were necessary to reach at a definite conclusion about the happening of the accident, as explained by the complainant.  The surveyor while giving such opinion should have explained in a more elaborate manner quoting his experience as well as the factual position about the happening of the accident, as explained by the complainant.  In the absence of any such explanation, the conclusion reached at by the surveyor, does not carry weight. 

 

10]      The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the judgment titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs K.L. Sivakumar I (2006) CPJ 334, in which it was held that the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant on the basis of contention that accident could not have happened in manner suggested by the Complainant. It was important to produce material evidence in support of contention in order to justify the repudiation by the insurer. In the given situation, Surveyor’s report alone cannot be relied, when a particular statement is made and asserted. In the present case too the Complainant has specifically alleged that the Surveyor did not explain reasons as to why the damage to the car did not coincide with the cause of accident as narrated by him. In the present case, the Surveyor’s report without any supporting affidavit from his side cannot be believed and the partial repudiation by the OPs on the basis of this report is held to be unjustified. This action of the OPs is definitely a deficiency in service on their part and the present complaint deserves to be allowed against them.

 

11]      In another case, titled as Hira Lal Ramesh Chand vs. new India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., II(003) CPJ 43 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, has held that the Surveyor’s report, without any supportive affidavit, has little evidentiary value, therefore, the valuation as mentioned in its report, cannot be held right. 

 

12]      In the light of aforementioned two judgments, it is abundantly clear that the surveyor Sh.Dheeraj Singla failed to conclusively opine about the non- admissibility of the entire claim of the complainant and the Opposite Parties having failed in placing on record an affidavit of the surveyor, have failed in their obligation in offering the complete loss to the vehicle of the complainant and the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part.   

 

13]      In view of the above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

 

[a] To pay Rs.1,44,020/-, the amount paid by the complainant towards repair of the vehicle in question.

 

[b] To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

 [c] The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para (a) & (b) above from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

22^nd June, 2015                                                 

 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                      

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.12 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 22nd day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	Presiding Member