Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 619
Instituted on : 24.12.2018
Decided on : 19.02.2024.
Deepak Kumar, age 31 years, s/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh R/o House No. 109A, V.P.O. GarhiBalab, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Haryana-124001
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.. SCO-237, 2nd Floor, Sector-12 Karnal-132001 through its Manager.
- Badhwar Automobiles, Rohtak, District Rohtak- 124001.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.DeepakChahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that complainant met with an accident on dated 08.03.2018 on his motorcycle Royal Enfield Classic 350, Make 2016, which was insured withrespondent company. Due to the injuries the complainant could not registered his claim on time and after treatment of his injuries on 18.04.2018 the complainant registered the claim in respondent company.The comprehensive policy Number issued by respondent is 2312201835628000000 and customer ID is 100518837889 and the registration No. HR-12AB-6176. After registration of claim the complainant approached to the respondent No. 2 for repairing his bike and where surveyor of respondent namely Gaurav from Delhi demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe for passing the claim. The complainant flatly refused for the same and respondent's surveyor intentionally and deliberately through the claim No. C230018019877 passed the half claim which is wrong and injustice with the complainant. The respondent No. 2 repaired the whole bike and a bill of repairis Rs.36,257/- as spare part charges and Rs.6372/- as labour charges + Rs.972/-as taxes is produced by the opposite party No.2. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, opposite party refused to give the whole claim of the complainant's vehicle. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.05.2018 to the respondent but the same was not replied.The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.36,257/- + Rs.6372/- +Rs.972/- as bill issued by respondent No. 2 alongwith compensation on account of harassment mental agony and deficiency in service along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation and litigation expenses and other charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its written statement has submitted that the vehicle met with loss on 08-03-2018 and the complainant got registered the claim on 18-04-2018, that too after unexplained delay of 40 days. Without admitting any injury and liability on the part of respondent, it is submitted that the injuries suffered by him does not suggest that the complainant was not in a position to intimate about the loss for long span of 40 days. It will be pertinent to mention here that there are number of ways in which the customer can lodge a claim i.e. on the toll free number, via Internet, by sending a registered AD letter or by intimating in the nearest branch of the respondent, but the complainant had not lodged any claim regarding the alleged loss allegedly occurred on 18-03-2018 and now moved before the Hon’ble Forum with unclean hand and wants to get unjust benefit for his wrong.There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent as alleged. The relevant provisions are reproduced hereinafter for conveyance of Hon’ble Forum.
"Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and, therefore the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require."
It is further submitted on the receipt of claim intimation regarding the loss of the vehicle dated 08-03-2018, opposite party registered the claim of the complainant and allotted the claim number C230018019877 and appointed an Independent surveyor Innovative valuers and engineer consultant Pvt ltd. to assess the loss to the vehicle. It is wrong and denied that the official of the surveyor company demanded any alleged bribe. The alleged demand of the money by the official of the surveyor company has not been brought to the knowledge of the opposite party. The claim of complainant is closed due to non-submission of documents. The opposite party served letters dated 04-05-18, 23-05-18 and 01-06-2018, requesting the complainant to submit the documents mentioned below:-
1. Repair bill.2. AML Document3. NEFT Document.
But the complainant failed to submit the same and thus the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim vide letter dated 08-06-18 duly served upon the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is admitted to the extent that the complainant approached the answering opposite party for repairing his motorcycle bearing registration no. HR12-AB-6176. However, it is submitted that the labour charges of Rs.6372/- are inclusive of GST of Rs.972/-.
The complainant never approached the opposite party for settlement of his claim. Otherwise also, the alleged insurance policy is a contract between the complainant and opposite party no.1 with which the opposite party has nothing to do. No Legal Notice was ever sent to the answering opposite party. There has been no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed, qua the opposite party, with heavy costs in the interest of justice.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on 10.10.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/6 and closed his evidence on 18.02.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, and closed his evidence on 07.01.2021.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the vehicle in question met with an accident on 08.03.2018. As per the complainant he spent an amount of Rs.36257/- as spare parts charges and Rs.6372/- as labour charges plus Rs.972/- as taxes. . As per written statement filed by the respondent no.1, the claim was lodged by the complainant on 18.04.2018 after a delay of 40 days. As per term and condition no.1 of the insurance policy, the insured shall give all the information and assistance to the company so that the claim may be processed. The policy wording is reproduced as under:-
"Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and, therefore the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require."
The IRDA surveyor was appointed to assess the loss in the vehicle in question of the complainant. The surveyor has submitted that the complainant has not submitted repair bill which was necessary for settlement of the claim. Respondent no.1 wrote three letters dated 04.05.2018, 23.05.2018and 01.06.2018 to the complainant with request to submit some documents i.e. repair bill, NEFT documents and ALM documents and vide letter dated 08.06.2018 has closed the claim as no claim. Respondent no.2 has submitted in written statement and affidavit that the vehicle bearing registration no.HR12AB6476 was repaired by the respondent no.2 which suffered loss in an accident. The respondent no.2 have charged an amount of invoice Rs.36257/- and Rs.6372/- from the complainant. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per respondent no.1 they had demanded three documents from the complainant i.e, repair bill, NEFT Documents and AML documents through the letters Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. As per Ex.RW1/6, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.2300/-. We have perused the survey report placed on record as Ex.RW1/6. In this report maximum repair parts are disallowed and the same were in intact condition. To prove these facts, respondent has not submitted relevant technical report before this Commission. Moreover during the perusal of documents a copy of letter dated 04.05.2018 was also annexed with the complaint. In this letter which is marked as ‘Annexure JN-A’, the respondent no.1 has allowed only 5 parts i.e. RH FRT FOOTREST, RH LEVER, DISC LEVER, FORK REPAIR AND HANDLE BAR and remaining damages i.e. chassis frame, chamber comp. etc. of the vehicle has been declined on the ground that the said damages does not co-relate with the cause of accident. Meaning thereby the vehicle was in damaged condition at that time. As per our opinion after letter dated 04.05.2018 the insurance company wrote 3 letters to the complainant dated 23.05.2018, 01.06.2018 and 08.06.2018. The surveyor report was also submitted by the surveyor with the insurance company on 07.06.2018. Meaning thereby after considering all the facts the insurance company demanded 3 documents from the complainant i.e. repair bill, AML documentand NEFT documents, whereas the motorcycle has been repaired by the respondent no.2 on 19.05.2018. Perusal of documents shows that vehicle was repaired on 19.05.2018 whereas the survey report was submitted by the surveyor on 07.06.2018. Hence the surveyor has re-inspected the vehicle in question after repair of the vehicle. It is the prime duty of the surveyor that when the vehicle had already been repaired by the respondent no.2 in that situation he should collect the repair bill from the respondent no.2 and attach these bills with his survey report but the surveyor failed to do so. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.36257/- andRs.6372/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.42629/-(Rupees forty two thousand six hundred and twenty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.12.2018 till its realisation and shall also 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. However, complainant is directed to submit the NEFT detail with the opposite party No.1 within 15 days.
8. 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:
19.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
