Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 546.
Instituted on : 05.11.2018.
Decided on : 18.10.2021.
Khushi Ram Age 64 years s/o Sh. Chandgi Ram, R/o VPO Sisroli, District-Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. c/o Hafed District Office, SCO 19-20, Ground Floor, Part-1, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana (Through its Branch Manager).
- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rajendra Kinha Tower, IInd Floor, Nr. Bajrang Bhawan, Main Delhi Road, Jhang Colony, Rohtak, Haryana(Through its Branch Manager/Area Manager).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Behl, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant was registered owner of
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Car Ritz VDI BS IV bearing registration No. HR-11F-0875 and the same was insured with the opposite parties vide Nil depreciation policy no.28105534 for the period 12.07.2017 to 11.07.2018. On 28.06.2018, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. The complainant dropped his car at M/s Durge Motors, Near Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak. Opposite party deputed surveyor who survey the car and refused to pay the full payment. The complainant paid Rs.29855/- on account of repair of his car, out of which opposite parties has paid only Rs.10959/- and remaining amount of Rs.18896/- was paid by the complainant himself even the insurance was for “Nil Depreciation”. Opposite parties also charged Rs.1000/- as file charges. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to settle the claim of complainant and be directed to pay Rs.18996/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the claim in question has already been settled according to the assessment made by the independent surveyor appointed by the answering respondent and the claim amount of Rs.14793/- has already been disbursed to repairer/workshop as cashless facility on dated 23.07.2018 through NEFT. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents, hence the claim filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that the respondent insurance company has paid the claim as per the assessment made by the surveyor after applying excess clause and salvage. Damages to RH Drive shaft, suspension Frame, Upper Grill is not relevant with cause of loss, hence disallowed at the time of final survey by the surveyor and payment made as per the assessed amount of Rs.14793/- in favour of workshop. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.09.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 01.02.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the complainant the vehicle met with an accident on dated 28.06.2018 and he got repaired the vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.29855/-. An amount of Rs.10959/- has been paid by the insurance company to the complainant against the loss suffered by him in his vehicle. Through this complainant he demanded an amount of Rs.18896/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. To prove the contents of complaint he placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand respondent insurance company has filed written statement, affidavit alongwith affidavit of surveyor Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Surveyor as Ex.RW1/B and also placed on record two documents i.e. vehicle survey report as Ex.R1 and claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher as Ex.R2. After perusal of the written statement and documents filed by the respondent, it is proved that the respondent insurance company had paid/disbursed an amount of Rs.14793/- to the repairer/ workshop as cashless facility on dated 23.07.2018 through NEFT. The complainant has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that he has received only an amount of Rs.10959/- against his claim raised by him before the insurance company. We have minutely perused Ex.C1 invoice no.DM/07/20/2018/041 dated 19.07.2018, in this invoice the detail of parts has been mentioned which has been replaced by the repairer and issued a bill dated 19.07.2018 amounting to Rs.18896/-. In another column of this document, the service type is mentioned as accident and mode of payment is mentioned as credit by insurance company namely Iffco Tokio. We have also perused an another invoice dated 09.08.2018 placed on record as Ex.C2, in which service type is mentioned as accident, mode of payment is mentioned as cash, the vehicle no. is mentioned as HR-11F-0875 and this invoice is amounting to Rs.10959/-. Meaning thereby the vehicle of the complainant was repaired two times i.e. firstly on 19.07.2018 and thereafter on 09.08.2018 and in total the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.29855/-(Rs.18896/- + Rs.10959/-). We have also perused the document Ex.R1 in which the surveyor has only considered the invoice dated 19.07.2018 and he has not mentioned any contents of invoice dated 09.08.2018. In fact both the invoices dated 19.07.2018 and 09.08.2018 arose due to accidental repair. Moreover the surveyor has also deducted an amount of Rs.4825.84/- on account of depreciation cost and Rs.150/- on account of salvage value. He further deducted an amount of Rs.1000/- as excess clause. In our view Rs.1000/- has been rightly deducted by the surveyor on account of excess clause as per terms and conditions of the policy but he has wrongly deducted the amount of depreciation cost and salvage value. The surveyor has also not considered the invoice dated 09.08.2018. The parts replaced vide invoice dated 09.08.2018 were damaged in the same accident and surveyor has not mentioned anywhere in his report that why these parts have not been considered. The detail of estimate is also not mentioned by the surveyor in his report. Only assessment has been mentioned. As per the affidavit filed by the surveyor it has been mentioned that the parts mentioned in invoice dated 09.08.2018 were damaged on the date of accident because in the affidavit the surveyor has mentioned that: “In this case, damages to RH Drive Shaft, Suspension Frame, Upper Grill is not relevant with cause of loss as explained by the insured, hence disallowed at the time of final survey for which the repairer has made another bill”. The surveyor has also not placed on record any statement made by the complainant before the surveyor. Why the complainant himself would deny for any parts which were damaged. We have also perused the claim discharge-cum-satisfaction voucher allegedly signed by the complainant, which is placed on record as Ex.R2. In this document the payment amount made by the insurance company to the repairer and other contents have not been mentioned. Moreover the date of discharge of this document has also not been mentioned. Hence this is a self serving document prepared by the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties are liable to pay the remaining amount to the complainant. As per record, complainant has paid an amount of Rs.29855/-(Rs.18896/- + Rs.10959/-) and after deducting the excess clause Rs.1000/- and the already paid claim Rs.14793/- the remaining amount comes to Rs.14062/-.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the remaining amount of Rs.14062/-(Rupees fourteen thousand and sixty two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.11.2018 till its realsiation to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.10.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
