Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/618/2020

Harpuneet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Bansal

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/618/2020
Date of Institution	:	28/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	21/11/2022

 

Harpuneet Singh s/o Lakhbir Singh r/o House No.2868, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at 5-C/1, Ground Floor, Sheetal Complex, Raj Baha Road, Patiala, Punjab – 147001 through its Managing Director.
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at Plot No.2B & C, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh – 160002 through its Manager.
3. M/s Em Pee Motors Limited Office at Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177-H, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. J.P. Nahar, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	None for OP-3.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Harpuneet Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of Innova car make Toyota bearing registration No.CH01 AY 3001 (hereinafter referred to as “aforesaid vehicle”) which was insured from OPs 1 & 2 under package policy.  The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and suffered damage, but, no third party loss had occurred. Thereafter the aforesaid vehicle was towed to the workshop of OP-3 for its repair and the copies of towing bill, job card and insurance policy are Annexure C-2 to C-4.  OP-3 assessed the loss to the tune of ₹3,56,594/-, excluding taxes and estimated cost for repair is Annexure C-5. The surveyor of the insurance company (OPs 1 & 2) assessed the loss to the tune of ₹4,46,470/- and the same was conveyed to the complainant by the OPs vide Annexure C-6.  However, despite of the fact that the surveyor of OPs 1 & 2 had assessed the loss to the tune of ₹4,46,470/-, OPs 1 & 2 conveyed their liability for claim to the tune of ₹96,517/- only.  As the aforesaid vehicle was the only vehicle with the family of the complainant which remained unattended with OP-3, the complainant and his family had suffered a lot.  Ultimately, complainant paid an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to OP-3 for repair of the aforesaid car as OPs 1 & 2 were not allowing his genuine claim. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part as a result of which the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the consumer complaint. 
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written reply/written statement.  In their written reply, OPs 1 & 2, inter alia, took preliminary objection of maintainability.  On merits, admitted the estimated loss of the car in question was prepared by the repairer to the tune of ₹3,56,594/-.  However, OPs 1 & 2 appointed an IRDA licensed surveyor, Sh.Surinder Pal Goyal to assess the loss who conducted the survey and submitted his report dated 23.1.2021 (Ex.OP-1&2/2) and assessed the repair liability to the extent of ₹2,49,999/-. Thereafter, the total cost of repair was conveyed vide invoice dated 20.1.2021 (Ex.OP-1&2/3) by OP-3  for a sum of ₹2,55,088/-.  The payment was directly made by OPs to the repairer for the amount of ₹2,49,999/- as per NEFT dated 27.1.2021 whereas the complainant had agreed to pay the balance amount of ₹5,088/- to the repairer towards the excess clause of ₹2,000/- as per the policy and other additional work carried out by the repairer and thereafter had signed discharge cum satisfaction voucher (Ex.OP-1&2/4). The complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous be dismissed.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-3 in its written statement took preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts.  On merits, alleged that the complainant had already settled the matter with the OP Insurance Company and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
4. No rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for OPs 1 & 2 and also gone through the file carefully.
4. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid vehicle was insured by OPs 1 & 2 and at the relevant time i.e. at the time of accident, the policy was in subsistence, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant is entitled for an amount of ₹4,46,470/-, as conveyed to the complainant vide Annexure C-6 or is entitled for an amount of ₹3,56,594/-, which was assessed by OP-3 vide Annexure C-5 or is entitled for an amount of ₹1,00,000/-, having been paid by the complainant to OP-3, alongwith compensation as prayed for. 
5. A perusal of the case file clearly shows that during the pendency of the present consumer complaint, complainant had settled the dispute with OPs and OPs 1 & 2 had directly paid an amount of ₹2,50,000/-, out of the total amount of ₹2,55,088/- i.e. total cost of repair conveyed by OP-3 vide invoice dated 20.1.2021 (Ex.OP-1&2/3), and balance amount of ₹5,088/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the repairer towards the excess clause of ₹2,000/- as per policy and other additional works carried out by the repairer and only after that the claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher (Ex.OP-1&2/4) was duly signed by the complainant and was issued to the repairer/OP-3.  Not only this, the claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher further reveals that the complainant has acknowledged that his aforesaid car has been repaired to his complete satisfaction and he had taken the car from OP-3 by authorizing OPs 1 & 2 to make payment of ₹2,50,000/- to OP-3 in respect of the aforesaid car and also confirmed that he has paid an amount of ₹5,088/- in lieu of depreciation, policy excess and additional works carried out by OP-3 by further agreeing that this payment being made to OP-3 is in full and final settlement of his claim.  Not only this, the complainant had further voluntarily given discharge receipt to the company in full and final settlement of all his claims, present or future arising directly/indirectly in respect of said loss/accident. Thus, the claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher (Ex.OP-1&2/4) makes it clear that the complainant had voluntarily settled the dispute with the OPs during the pendency of the consumer complaint and he is not able to prove that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, especially when it has come on record that OPs 1 & 2 have paid the insurance amount which was assessed by the surveyor and the complainant had taken the aforesaid vehicle from OP-3 after his full satisfaction.
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 21/11/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member