DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  67

                                                Instituted on:    16.02.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.05.2017

Ashwani Kumar Singla son of Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of House No.203, Ward No.14, Malka Wala, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025 through its Managing Director.

2.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Sangrur SCO-26, First Floor, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its District Manager.

3.     Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

4.     Max Autos, Authorized Dealer Maruti Sazooki Dealer, Mehal Mubarak, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Authorised Signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1&2:     Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.4 :       Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

For OPP. Party No.3 :       Exparte.  

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Ashwani Kumar Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his new car Swift Dezire bearing engine number 2657093 chassis number 802789 and registration number PB-13-AG-0909 from the OPs under policy number 3001/MI-03150607/00/000 for the period from 20.10.2015 to 19.10.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.25,546/-. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 29.8.2016 when the complainant was going from Village Shergarh to DEO Office Patiala and due to heavy rains he stopped his car near fountain chowk at Patiala, then on the back side a canter TATA 407 struck with the car and as such the car of the complainant went out of control and struck with the divider and badly damaged from front side, back side and driver side.  As such, the complainant intimated the Ops immediately and the OPs appointed Shri Jaswant Sharma, surveyor and brought the vehicle at Max Autos, Sangrur for examination of accidental vehicle of the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant got repaired his accidental car from M/s. Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur, where they charged an amount of Rs.43,230/- and accordingly the complainant submitted the documents to the Ops, but the Ops did not settle the claim.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.43,230/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature as the complainant is himself guilty for not supplying the AML documents and NEFT details, that the complainant has concealed the material facts and has also twisted and distorted the same to suit their own convenience. In the claim form the complainant alleged that one TATA 407 canter struck on the right side of the car and the vehicle damaged in an accident and in the complaint it is stated that the Canter TATA 407 struck behind the car and then car struck with the front side, that the present complaint should be dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/-.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs. It has been denied that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 29.8.2016 and stated further that the OP received intimation on 21.9.2016 and as such the Ops appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,259/- in respect of front damage of the vehicle, but the complainant did not submit the documents despite the fact the Ops wrote letters to the complainant on 26.10.2016, 16.11.2016 and 24.12.2016.  Lastly, it has been stated that the liability of the OPs is not beyond the amount of Rs.13,259/- as assessed by the surveyor. The remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 4, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question . However, it has been admitted that the complainant brought the car in damaged condition to the workshop of the OP for repairs and the same was duly repaired and the complainant paid Rs.43,230/- as bill amount for repairing the vehicle in question.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             Record shows that the OP number 3 was proceeded exparte, as it did not come present despite service.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/9 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and  closed evidence.

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-AG-0909 from the OP number 1 and 2 for the period from 20.10.2015 to 19.10.2016 for Rs.6,67,123/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.24546/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 29.08.2016 near Patiala and the complainant gave intimation to the Ops about the accident of the vehicle, as such, the OPs appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss.  Accordingly, the complainant got repaired the car in question from the OP number 4 by spending an amount of Rs.43,230/-, as is evident from the copy of  invoice Ex.C-10 and receipt Ex.C-11, which clearly show that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.43,200/- to OP number 4 on account of repair charges of the disputed car in question.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops number  1 and 2 is that the complainant claimed the loss of both right side windows, front fender, head light and submitted the estimate of Rs.37802/- dated 22.9.2016, but the surveyor allowed the claim in respect of loss to front damage and as such assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13259/- vide his report dated 31.10.2016.  We have perused the copy of invoice Ex.C-10 which clearly reveals that the OP number 4 replaced the parts of the car to the tune of Rs.26,641/-, whereas the amount claimed as labour charges is Rs.16588/-.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 1 and 2 that how the surveyor assessed the loss to the car on account of loss of front side only as Rs.13259/-, whereas the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.43200/- on the repair of the car in question from all sides, more so when the car was got repaired from the authorised dealer of the manufacturer i.e. Max Autos, Sangrur. We have also perused the affidavit of the surveyor, Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, wherein he has stated that he found that the cause of loss as narrated in the claim form does not match with the actual loss, but there is no explanation from the side of the surveyor that how he felt that the claim does not match as narrated, more so when he has not given any explanation to the contrary.  It is worth mentioning here that it is a settled law that if the vehicle is got repaired from the authorised dealer, then the claim is payable fully and in the present case the vehicle was insured first time and there was zero depreciation, as is evident from the certificate cum policy schedule, which is on record as Ex.C-2.  Under the circumstances of the case, we find that the OPs number 1 and 2 are liable to pay to the complainant the full claimed amount of Rs.43,200/- as paid by him to the OP number 4 and by not doing so, the Ops number 1 and 2 are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.43,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.02.2017 till realisation.   In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        May 22, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member