DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.151/21

Rajesh Kumar Kaushik

S/o Shri Radhe Shyam

H.No.3157, Mohlla Dassan

Cherkha Wallen

Haus Quzi

Delhi-110006.                                                                .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.

Through its authorised person

Fai House

Second Floor

10, Shahid Jeet Singh Marg

Qutab Institutional Area

New Delhi-110016.                                                        ….Opposite Party

Through its divisional manager

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution: 03.04.2021

Date of Order       : 15.05.2023

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava,

Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.4,50,000/-as compensation on account of mental, physical, pecuniary loss of Rs.33,500/-  for repair of their damaged vehicle alongwith litigation cost.

1. It is stated by the complainant that he has owner of the vehicle bearing No. HR 13K 1974 (Motor Cycle Splendor) Model which was insured by the OP. 
2. It is further stated on 14.07.2018 complainant met with an accident and the vehicle was damaged by another vehicle No. HR13M0693 (Brezza car).  The complainant lodged an FIR against the accused at Bahadurgarh Police Station vide No.403/18 against the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The vehicle of the complainant was on superdari and the complainant took his vehicle to a workshop who gives an estimate of repair of Rs.33,500/-.
4. In this regard, a Surveyor appointed by the OP who visited the workshop but he directed to repair only some parts of the vehicle instead of complete repair.  It is stated by the complainant that he spoke to the surveyor regarding the repair of complete damaged vehicle but the surveyor told him that he was instructed by the company to repair only some parts.
5. It is stated by the complainant that though he had supplied documents to the surveyor and despite several visits to the office of the OP, his amount has not been released.
6. It is further stated by the complainant that in this regard, a legal notice was sent to the OP and in its reply by the OP it was stated that the complainant has not provided NEFT Form to the OP.
7. It is the case of the complainant that he is consumer and he did not get the requisite service/claim of damaged vehicle from the OP he is seeking compensation.  It is stated that the OP has failed to provide service and has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
8. In their reply, the OP has taken the preliminary objections and there is no deficiency on their part that the complaint is time barred, the complainant’s NEFT Form/cancelled cheques details were not available.
9. It is not denied by the OP that they had provided an insurance policy to the complainant or that the claim was lodged with them.  It is stated by the OP that the claim was promptly processed and a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss vide its report dated 04.08.2018 at Rs.3,163/-.  The true copy of the survey and loss assessment report is annexed as annexure R-3.
10. It is further stated by the OP that during scrutinization of the documents it was found that the NEFT/cancelled cheques was not available therefore, request was sent to the complainant on 16.08.2018 and reminder letters on 21.09.2018, 07.11.2018 were sent to the complainant who did not respond to the said communication and therefore, the claim was closed on account of non compliance of the documents from the insured.
11. It is stated by the OP that the complainant has only filed an estimate of repairs of M/s Satvik Motors dated 18.07.2018 but the said issue does not disclose the cost of repair caused by the accident. It is stated by the OP that scrutiny of the estimate by the surveyor shows that only accidental damage has been approved.  It is stated that the complainant has not disclosed the amount of repairs paid by him to the workshop and no invoice has been annexed by him.  In this regard, it is further stated that the complainant has deliberately not disclosed the actual invoice as it amounts to Rs.4,400/- only.  A copy of the tax invoice for the repair of the vehicle is annexed as annexure R-8.
12. It is reiterated by the OP that they are only liable for the loss caused by the accident and have denied the averments of the complainant visiting the office of the OP multiple times.
13. It is stated by the OP that the amount claimed in the prayer is a random number without any justification.  It is reiterated by the OP that there has been no deficiency in service on their part.
14. In its rejoinder, the complainant had denied the averments of OP and have stated that he has never received any letter from the OP and that the receipts of the letters shall a different Pin Code then the complainant’s Pin Code. It is reiterated by the complainant that he had handed over all the details pertaining to his bank to the surveyor and that the surveyor has no right to pick and choose the damages caused to the vehicle.
15. It is stated by the complainant that after getting the repairs done which were approved by the surveyor since the motor cycle was not fit to run on the road, it was taken to a private mechanic and that receipt was not handed over to the complainant.
16. It is further stated by the complainant that the complaint is within limitation as the complainant visited the office in the first week January.  The complainant has further reiterated that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written submissions. Oral arguments were heard and this Commission has gone through the entire material on record.

This Commission is of the view that the complaint is within limitation as the last reminder was sent to the complainant in April 2018 and thereafter the complaint has been filed in 2021. As per the order  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in CW 3/2020, the time for computation for filing the complaint after 15.03.2020 has to be excluded and therefore, this complaint is within time.

It is noticed that time and again, the OP has sent reminders to the complainant to provide his NEFT Form/cancelled cheques details. This is also seen that the receipts show a different PIN code of the complainant. The complainant has not disclosed the amount of repair paid by him to the workshop and no such invoice has been annexed by him.  The actual invoice has been placed by the OP as annexure R-8. The actual expenditure incurred is to the tune of Rs. 4,400/-. Surveyor appointed by the OP has assessed the loss vide its report dated 04.08.2018 at Rs.3,163/- which is annexed as annexure R-3.

Therefore, this Commission is  of the opinion that the OP is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,400/- i.e the actual expenditure incurred by the complainant as per the invoice on record. The amount is payable to the complainant with interest @ 6% from 04.08.2018 till the date of realisation within three months from the date of the order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a on the said amount.  No other relief/amount is found payable to the complainant. The complaint is disposed off in these terms.

Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website