DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 112 of 28.3.2017

                                      Decided on:         3.3.2021

Rajdeep Singh Gill son of Sh.Jagjit Singh Gill resident of #826, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Patiala-147001.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, SCO-11, Chhoti Baradari Patiala-147001.
3. Hira Automobiles Ltd., Rajbaha Road, Patiala 147001 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.M.L.Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

                                      Sh.R.K.Garg,counsel for OP No.3.                               

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Rajdeep Singh Gill  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .

Facts of the complaint

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he got his car model Maruti Claz having registration No.PB20B-0002 insured from OP No.1 for the period from 26.10.2016 to 25.10.2017 vide policy No.3001/M1-03167481/00/000 dated 29.10.2016 and paid the premium. At the time of insurance it was told that insurance is bumper to bumper.OP No.1 did not hand over the policy but only cover note was sent. It is averred that in the month of December,2016, car of the complainant met with an accident. Intimation was sent to OP No.1 and on its instructions the car was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 for repair. After repair, OP No.2 prepared bill of Rs.79,751/-which was to be paid by OP No.1 as the insurance was being from  bumper to bumper but he was surprised when he was asked to pay the amount of Rs.25230/- as the insurance company had cleared the claim only of Rs.54521/- and under the compelled circumstances he paid the said amount to OP No.2.Thereafter the complainant came to know that this amount was related to salvage which was neither adjusted in the bill nor returned to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused pain and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to handover the insurance policy ; to pay the remaining amount of Rs.25230/-; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.6000/- as litigation charges.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply.

Reply/Written statement

4. In the written reply filed by OPs No.1&2 preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy covering the risk of his car bearing registration No.PB-20-B-0002 w.e.f.26.10.2016 to 25.10.2017 and copy of the policy alongwith terms and conditions was supplied to the complainant; that the complainant intimated loss with regard to his car to the insurance company, after which the insurance company deputed surveyor and survey was done on 14.12.2016.The surveyor vide his report assessed the liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.54,848.67 and as per the recommendation and assessment of loss by the surveyor full payment has been made to the workshop and now nothing is remained pending and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got his car in question insured with the OPs but it is denied that the policy is from bumper to bumper. Further the OPs have reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections the contents of which are not need to be repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the written reply filed by OP No.3 it also raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable ; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is further submitted that the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of OP No.3 for its repair and after providing the estimate of cost of repair to the complainant as well as to the surveyor of insurance company, repaired the vehicle and charged the amount from the complainant.
7. On merits again it is admitted that after accident of the vehicle the complainant took the vehicle at the workshop of OP No.3 for its repair and after repairing the vehicle at the time of handing over the vehicle ,charged full amount from the complainant. It is submitted that the OP never denied to handover the salvage/damaged parts of the vehicle to the complainant.Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP No.3 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. .
8. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill, Operation Head of OP No.3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP9 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Kumar, authorized signatory alongwith documents Exs.OP10 to OP12 and closed the evidence.
11.  
11. Both the parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant got his vehicle insured with the OP no.1 company .In the year December,2016 the car with an accident. Intimation was sent and after the repair bill of Rs.79751 was sent and the insurance was bumper to bumper. The ld. counsel further argued that the OPs cleared bill of Rs.54521/- and has not paid the remaining bill amount of Rs.25230/-.so the complaint be allowed.
13. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.54848.67 and as per the recommendation and assessment of loss full payment has been made, so the complaint be dismissed.
14. The ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that Op No.3 has no concern with the insurance company, so complaint be dismissed accordingly.
15. To prove the case Sh.Rajdeep Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is the insurance policy, Ex.C2 is the job card amounting to Rs.79751/-,Ex.C3 is e-mail sent by Rajdeep Singh to HDFC Bank,Ex.C4 copy of cheque of Rs.25230/- in favour of Hira Automobiles,Ex.C5 copy of cheque of Rs.25,230/- in favour  of Hira Automobiles.
16. On behalf of OP No.3 Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA, Ex.OPB is affidavit of Pankaj Kumar, Ex.OPC is affidavit of Damanjit Singh, surveyor and loss assessor,Ex.OP1 is authorization letter,Ex.OP2 to OP4 are service estimate,Exs.OP5 and OP6 are job cards,Ex.OP7 is also job card for the total amount to the extent of Rs.79,751/-,Exs.OP8 , is the receipt of Hira Automobile vide which it had received Rs.54521.67 directly from the insurance company,Ex.OP9 is receipt of Hira Automobiles vide which it had received Rs.25,230/- from the complainant,Ex.OP10 is policy alongwith rules.
17. Ex.OP11 is surveyor report of Damanjit Singh. This is detailed survey report, in which it is mentioned that total payable amount is Rs.54,848.67, it is accompanied the total damaged parts and changed the amount of which was paid by the complainant to Hira Automobiles. The insurance policy is on the file but it is not mentioned in the insurance policy that this policy cover was from bumper to bumper. Had this policy was of bumper to bumper then the insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount. As per the evidence the insurance company has given the amount of Rs.54521.67 directly to M/s Hira Automobiles vide receipt,Ex.OP8. Now the complainant is demanding Rs.25.230/-paid by him to the Hira Automobile but it is also argued by the ld. counsel for the OPs that policy was not from bumper to bumper and the amount has been paid for which the complainant was entitled.
18. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.   

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.3.2021         

                                          Y.S.Matta                   Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                            Member                                       President