Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 118
Instituted on : 11.03.2019.
Decided on : 05.04.2022.
Smt. Prem Kumari age 75 years, w/o Subhash Chander Dureja R/o H.No.252, Subhash Nagar, Rohtak(Haryana)-124001..
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- HDFC ERGO General insurance Company Limited D-301, 3rd Floor, Eastern Business District(Magnet Mall)LBS Marg, Bhandup(West), Mumbai-400078.
- HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Delhi Road, 2nd floor, Plot no.400, 401,402, HDFC Bank Building, Model Town, Rohtak-124001.
- Srishti Hyundai, Jind Bye Pass, Road Opp. New Power House, Rohtak-124001.
…………….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sushil Juneja, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh.Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of a vehicle i.e. Hyundai Car(i-20) having registration No.HR-AC-7925 and the same was insured by respondent company vide policy No.2311100220464001000 and the same was valid for the period of 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2019. Hence he is a consumer of respondent. On dated 15.11.2018 the above said vehicle which was being driven by his daughter-in-law met with an accident and was badly damaged. The complainant reported the alleged incident to the insurance company. The repair estimate given/shown by the respondent and calculated by workshop is to the tune of Rs.119748.60/-. The vehicle was parked at Shristhi Hyundai Motors Pvt. Ltd. Rohtak for a cashless claim. The surveyor deputed from the insurance company assessed the loss and after the assessment the company refused to pass the partial genuine claim of various parts without any valid reason. The above said various parts which are called 1.Panel ASSY-QUARTER OUTER LH, 2. PANEL ASSY-PILLAR OUTER LH, 3. PANEL ASSY-REAR DOOR LH were also damaged during the accident and also same was reported in the claim form and a total cost to these damaged parts was estimated around Rs.24170 + labour amount of Rs.5000/- i.e. total Rs.29170/-. The complainant has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of above said policy which was provided by respondent. Hence the respondents are legally liable to pay the above said amount to the complainant and complainant requested the respondents so many times and also served a legal notice in this regard upon the respondents regarding payment of above said amount but respondents have not given any heed to the genuine request of complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.29170/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that the claim of the complainant has already been settled in as much as the answering respondent paid a sum of Rs.29390/- on account of repair liability of the vehicle in question, directly to the workshop namely “M/s Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd.”. The amount paid is as per the amount assessed by the IRDA approved surveyor. On merits, it is submitted that after receiving the information of the claim the Insurance Company had deputed an IRDA accredited independent surveyor to assess the loss in the said vehicle. Surveyor examined the vehicle in question and after minute inspection and verification, allowed certain damages parts which were related to the damages as claimed, and further disallowed certain parts which were not correlated with the damages as claimed. Thereafter, as per the assessment as done by the surveyor the answering opposite party paid the sum of Rs.29390/- on account of repair liability of the vehicle in question, directly to the workshop namely “M/s Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd.”. Thus the claim of the complainant has duly been settled as per the set norms and nothing liability is left towards answering respondent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that complainant brought her Hyundai i-20 Car to the answering opposite party on 16.11.2018 in accidental condition. As the vehicle was insured with opposite party no.1 & 2 so claim was intimated to the opposite party no.1 & 2 by the complainant and thereafter the surveyor deputed by the opposite party No.1 & 2 inspected and conducted the survey of the aforesaid vehicle and after that the job work of the vehicle was started with the consent of the complainant & surveyor of the opposite party No.1 & 2 for the parts approved by opposite party No.1 & 2. The aforesaid vehicle was repaired vide Invoice no.B201810941 dated 20.11.2018 for Rs.30597/- and the aforesaid vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Out of the aforesaid invoice amount, an amount of Rs.29591/- was paid by opposite party No.1 & 2 whereas rest of the amount was paid by the complainant to the answering opposite party. The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief from the opposite party No.1 & 2. Thus neither there is any cause of action nor there is any claim by the complainant against the answering opposite party.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 12.02.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/7 and closed his evidence on 11.08.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.RW3/1 to Ex.RW3/7 and closed his evidence on 10.03.2021.
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, it is not disputed that vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and after the accident, complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 & 2 appointed the surveyor and vide their letter Ex.R1/2 has submitted that : “During survey it has been observed that the damages mentioned by you in the claim Form and on physical verification of the vehicle, the below mentioned damages are correlating with the accident. Hence, the same are allowed as mentioned below: 1. Front Bumper, 2. Head Light Left, 3.Fender Left., 4.Radiator Support. Please note that damages to Rear Door Left, Qtr. Panel Left, Running Board Left of the vehicle, as claimed by you in the said accident, do not correlate with the cause of accident. The damages do not commensurate with the loss details. The said damages have been accumulated in the present claim which has been disallowed”. As per the repair estimate Ex.C2, some parts were disallowed by the opposite party No.1 & 2 mentioned at Sr. No.10, 11 and 12 and the cost of the parts are Rs.9998.44, Rs.6828.72 and Rs. 7344.37 respectively and the total amount comes to Rs.24171.53. The complainant has not repaired or replaced the above mentioned parts, because the surveyor had denied or disallowed the same. But in our opinion, the complainant has rightly claimed these parts and the same are also mentioned in Ex.C2 as these parts have been damaged in the alleged accident. Moreover some photographs have been placed on record by the respondent Ex.R1/4 to Ex.R1/7. Perusal of these documents shows that damage in above mentioned parts occurred in the alleged accident and complainant is legally entitled for the claim regarding the above mentioned parts.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 & 2 to pay the alleged amount of parts Rs.24171/- + Rs.5000/-as labour charges total Rs.29171/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand one hundred and seventy one only) for repair of the damaged parts alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.03.2019 till its realization 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..
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:
05.04.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member.
