Haryana

Karnal

174/14

Bhupesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco -Tokio General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.C. Pahwa

13 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.174 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt. 1.07.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 17.09.2015

 

Bhupesh wife of Sh.Ram Chand Pahwa r/o House No.1732-A, Sector -6, MIG, Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance c/o Modern Automobiles, 8 Meerut Road, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.     

 

 Present:       Sh.R.C.Pahwa, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Naveen Khetarpal Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:

 

                        The facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Ac 1986, are that complainant got her Alto car bearing registration No. HR-05U-7374 insured with the Opposite Party ( in short  OP) for the period of 27.8.2013 to 26.8.2014. The said car met with an accident on 16.6.2014 at about 10.00AM near HAP, Madhuban, as a result of which right side of the car  was badly damaged.  Immediately after the accident, she informed the OP , who asked  her to wait for some time and assured to send Surveyor  to inspect the vehicle, but no Surveyor was sent till 11.00AM.  Therefore, she took the car to Bhatia Motors, near ITI Chowk, Karnal. Officials of Bhatia Motors, Karnal also informed the OP regarding damages of the car  telephonically and then one Mr.Kalra was deputed as surveyor, who visited Bhatia Motors, Karnal, inspected the car and checked driving licence  and registration certificate. However, Surveyor told that claim of the damaged car  would  be  considered and  then left away.  Thereafter, she contacted the OP  in its office and dealing assistant advised her to bring the car to Modern   Workshop near Chhotu Ram Chowk, Karnal.  Then car was brought to Modern Workshop. Again Forman of the  workshop inspected the car and checked documents, but he also told that claim would be considered. Thus, neither any person on behalf of the OP  assessed the claim of the damaged car nor gave any satisfactory reply. Ultimately, she  took the car to her  residence. In this way, the OP was guilty  of unfair trade practice and there was deficiency in services on its part, which caused her mental agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to OP, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain  and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the  complaint; that complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of the process of law; that com plaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties and that the complainant is estopped by her own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that car of the complainant was insured with the OP. It has been submitted that on receiving intimation from the complainant regarding damages to the car, OP appointed Mr.  Mahesh Kumar Kalra,  Surveyor, who after  making proper inspection and assessment, submitted his report, according to which total amount payable to the complainant was Rs.1668/- The complainant herself was at fault as she did not provide requisitioned documents i.e .original repair bill, cancelled cheque of insured and letters dated 11.7.2014, 16.7.2014, 24.7.2014 and 14.8.2014 were sent to her in that regard. Therefore, claim of the complainant was closed as no claim.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been  denied specifically.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

4.                In evidence of the OP, affidavit of  Palllavi Roy authorized signatory Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.P8 have been tendered.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The parties are not at dispute regarding damage to the car of the complainant in the accident. As per the version of the   OP, claim of the complainant was made as “No Claim” as she did not furnish the requisitioned documents. The complainant has produced one bill of  issued by Sehgal Automobiles dated 17.3.2015 for Rs.2070/- regarding repair/replacement of the  rear bumper and tail light and  other issued by Harish Painter dated 11.3.2015 for Rs.3200/-  regarding painting and denting. The accident had taken place on 16.6.2014, but the complainant had taken the car to her house and  she got the same repaired in the month of March, 2015. It has been alleged by the complainant that Insurance Company did not get assessed the loss immediately after the accident and the car initially was taken to Bhatia Motors and then on asking of officials of the OP  to Modern Automobiles, but the surveyor and Forman of the Modern workshop told her that the damages to the car  would be considered .She has filed affidavit in  this regard reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and there is no  reason to disbelieve the same. Had the loss been assessed on the same day, then the complainant could surely get her car repaired from the aforesaid  workshops and there would not have been any question of taking the same to her house and getting the same repaired after a long period of more than eight months of the accident.

7.                The copy of the Surveyor report Ex.O5 shows that surveyor assessed the loss as Rs.3818/- and after making necessary deductions, the amount payable to the complainant was Rs.1668/-.  The surveyor’s report regarding the loss calculated by him cannot be ignored and no importance cannot be attached to the bills produced by the complainant regarding repairs of her car in  March,  2015.  As per documents Ex.OP3, Ex.OP4, Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP7, surveyor sent letters to the complainant for sending documents including original repair bills. When the complainant got  her car repaired in the month of March, 2015, it could not have been possible for her to produce the original bills.  As per contents of her affidavit, registration certificate and driving licence etc. were shown by her to the surveyor at the spot.  If, those documents were required, Photostat copies of the same could be obtained by the surveyor instead of writing the said letters. When the Surveyor assessed the loss, the insurance company was bound to pay at least  the said amount, even if the original bills were not produced by the complainant. Had the complainant raised the issue that the amount spent by her on the repairs was  more than the  loss assessed  by the surveyor then only, insurance company could raise such plea that original bills were not produced. However, the insurance company did not pay the amount of Rs.1668/- which was assessed as loss by the surveyor to the complainant by  raising technical objections which were not called for under the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.1668/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.  1.07.2014 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to  her and litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.R.C.Pahwa, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Naveen Khetarpal Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file lbe consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.