Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/111/2021

Bharpur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

iffco - Tokio General Insurance company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Deepak Sheoran

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.      

         

                                                                   Complaint No.: 111 of 2021.

                                                                    Date of Institution: 22.04.2021.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 09.08.2024.

Bharpur Singh son of Shri Randhir Singh, resident of ward No. 16, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri (Haryana).

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                                                                       

                                      Versus

1.       IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office, IFFCO Sadan C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager/authorized signatory.

2.       Lohchab Krishna Motors Private Limited, near Central School, Rohtak-Bhiwani Road, Bhiwani through its authorized person/authorized signatory.

                                                                              …...Opposite Parties.

 

                             COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Dharampal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Deepak Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the OP No. 2.

 

ORDER:-

 

                    Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of Renault Car No. HR-31J-5488 and got insured the same with the OP No. 1 vide Policy No. 1-1432SN4E, P400 Policy # M7753165 w.e.f. 10.5.2019 to 9.5.2020.  It is averred that the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident, because all of sudden Neel Cow (Ronz) came before the vehicle and due to accident vehicle badly damaged and information about the accident was given to the OP No. 1 as well as to Police by the complainant.  It is further averred that Police Post, Baund Kalan on 15.12.2019, lodged a Rapat No. 033.  It is further averred on the advice of OP No. 1, complainant carry the vehicle to the workshop of OP No. 2.  It is further averred that the Surveyor of OP No. 1 has inspected the vehicle and instructed complainant to fulfill further formalities and assured to change the entire new body cell of the vehicle in accordance with the insurance policy.  It is further averred that after receiving message from OPs, the complainant visited the office of OP No. 2 to take delivery of vehicle, he was shocked to know that another old body cell of some vehicle was been changed on the vehicle of complainant by the OPs in collusion with each other only to cause financial loss to complainant.  It is further averred that the complainant has requested the OP No. 1, but OP No. 1 has flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant for new body cell of the vehicle.  It is further averred that a complaint was made on twitter account of Renault Company, but to no effect.  It is further averred that a legal notice was served upon the OPs requiring them to replace the new body cell on the vehicle, but to no effect.  Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP No.1 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering OP on receipt of intimation about the accident and damage caused to vehicle, they deputed an independent surveyor and loss assessor Shri Pardeep Kumar Gupta on 17.12.2019 and survey was also carried out on the same day.  It is averred that the Loss was assessed by the Surveyor as per the bills submitted by the insured and repairer and after assessing the liability as per insurance policy, the surveyor submitted his final report dated 7.7.2020, assessing the loss after making necessary deductions such as depreciation, salvage and compulsory excess as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy for Rs.1,60,378/- and the said amount was paid by the answering OP to the complainant vide NEFT dated 14.8.2020 in full and final settlement.  It is further averred that the surveyor as no point of time recommended replacing the body cell of the vehicle, as the body cell was repairable with the child parts.  It is further averred that the demand of new body cell is not justified.  It is further averred that surveyor or insurance company are not responsible, if any old part setup in the vehicle by the repairer, the job of surveyor is only make an assessment as per bills submitted by the insured and repairer, as per policy terms and conditions.  It is further averred that as per the policy depreciation clause, depreciation of 40% applicable on the parts replaced on the vehicle, as the vehicle of the complainant at the time of accident was falls under more than 5 years category and he has to bear 40% cost of a new body cell, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It is further averred that the intimation was given after delay of about 4 days on 16.12.2019.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                On appearance, the OP No.2 filed contested written statement alleging therein that the vehicle in question was bring to the workshop of the answering OP in accidental condition in the month of December, 2019 and the said vehicle was not having cashless policy, so an estimate of the cost of repairing and after due consideration, the complainant had deposited the pre-invoice amount of Rs. 20,000/- and instructed the answering OP to replace an old body cell.  It is further averred in the month of February, 2020 the vehicle in question was ready for delivery and answering OP informed the complainant and generated invoice/bill of Rs.3,30,000/-. It is further averred that in first week of March, 2020, the complainant took a test ride and after satisfaction assured to take the delivery after few days and to pay amount of Rs. 3,10,000/-, but the workshop got closed due to lockdown because of pandemic of COVID19 till 18.5.2020.  It is further averred that after re-opening, the answering OP has requested the complainant many times to take the delivery and to pay the outstanding amount, but to no effect.  It is further averred that finally answering OP has sent a legal notice to the respondent on 23.11.2020 with the request to take the delivery after payment of outstanding amount alongwith parking charges of sum of Rs. 100/- per day.  It is further averred that the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs.3,10,000/- till date.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10 and closed his evidence on 19.9.2022. 

5.                Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, RW2/A and documents Ex. R1 and R2 and closed his evidence on dated 22.2.2023.   Ld. counsel for the OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW3/A and documents RW3/B and RW3/C and closed his evidence on 22.2.2023.

6.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The only plea taken by complainant is that the OPs have replaced the old body cell of the insured vehicle instead of new body cell.  The plea taken by the complainant is not tenable.  It is admitted fact that the claim of the complainant has been settled by the OPs to the tune of Rs.1,60,378/-.  The main dispute between the parties is that the body cell of insured vehicle was changed with old one and complainant wants to change the body cell of the vehicle with new one.  From the perusal of Annexure R2, it reveals that as per the policy wording rate of depreciation is 40% on vehicles more than 5 years old.  In the case in hand also vehicle in question is covered under 40% depreciation value.  So, in our view, Surveyor has rightly assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,60,378/- in his report dated 7.7.2020 Ex. R1, as per 40% rate of depreciation, salvage and compulsory excess, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Thus, the OP No. 1 has rightly settled the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,60,378/- and paid the same to the complainant on 14.8.2020. Thus, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.                Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.