DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 55/2011
Sh. Jawahar Madan
Prop. Shanti Steel Industries
A 104/6, Wazirpur Industrial Area,
Delhi – 110052. ……Complainant
Versus
M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
FAI Building, 2nd Floor, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi – 110067. ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 04.02.2011 Date of Order : 02.01.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Shanti Steel Industries, A 104/6, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi – 110052 and he took a motor insurance policy No. 70088951 in respect of Maruti Swift ZX1 No. DL 2 C AF 1152 from OP. Insurance was from 20.8.2009 to 19.8.2010. The car met with an accident on 14.9.09 and he filed a claim for Rs. 21942/- vide letter dated 10.5.2010 but the OP assessed the loss as Rs. 4000/- which was not acceptable to him. He again sent a letter dated 22.7.10 on various grounds to the OP. Pleading deficiency in service, the complainant has prayed that OP may be directed:
- to pay an amount of Rs. 21942/- as expenses incurred on repair of car,
- to pay Rs. 50,000/- as mental and physical harassment caused to him, and
- to pay Rs. 5,000/- as consultant fee for correspondence with the insurance with 12% interest on the above all amount.
In its written statement, OP has inter-alia stated that M/s Shanti Steel Industries had vehicle bearing No. DL 2C AF 1152 (Maruti Swift, ZXI) insured with them vide Private Car Package Policy bearing No. 70088951 for the period 20.8.2009 to 19.8.2010. The complainant lodged an accidental damage claim on 14.9.09. Immediately, on receipt of the intimation, the OP appointed Sh. Mukesh Mendiratta, an IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor to investigate and assess the loss. The surveyor submitted its report dated 7.10.09 in which a claim for an amount of Rs. 9360.63 was approved. In that report, the damages to the left front door were old/already repaired and did not correlate with the cause of accident. This was duly informed by the surveyor to the complainant. The complainant was dissatisfied. The complainant without intimation to the surveyor or the OP removed his vehicle from M/s Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd., B-62/2, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi and got the vehicle repaired from a local workshop. The complainant again sent a letter to the OP in the month of May 2010 along with documents for the settlement of the claim. They asked the surveyor to reassess the claim in the light of the fresh documents filed by the complainant. The surveyor filed its addendum motor survey report dated 8.7.2010 and it was observed in the report that the door which was allowed earlier for replacement from the Maruti Authorized workshop was instead got repaired by the complainant from the local workshop. It was also observed that only the Service Tax was applicable on labour, hence Vat was removed. Also Rs. 800/- were deducted as per the market rate of labour from the authorized workshop to the Local workshop. Hence, the net assessed loss as per the Addendum report dated 8.7.2010 came out to Rs. 3,999.75. They sent a document to the complainant to discharge voucher of Rs. 4000/- and requested him to send the same back signed so that the cheque can be prepared but to no effect. OP has prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Complainant has filed rejoinder/replication to the written statement filed by the OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Chaudhary, Vice President, Claims has been filed on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the counsels for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
It is not disputed that the complainant had got his vehicle insured with the OP for the period from 20.8.09 to 19.8.2010. The complainant’s car met with an accident on 14.9.09 and he had informed the OP and filed the claim. The OP appointed a surveyor to inquire into the damages of the vehicle. Surveyor submitted its report dated 7.10.09 in which a claim of Rs. 9360.63 was approved. The complainant removed his vehicle from the authorized service station and got the vehicle repaired from the local workshop and he had submitted the claim to the OP for payment. The complainant was not satisfied with the amount of Rs. 4000/- to be paid by the OP. Again he had filed a claim before the OP for settlement of the claim. The OP sent the claim papers to the surveyor for settlement. The surveyor report shows that the door which was allowed earlier for replacement from Maruti Authorized workshop was instead got repaired by the complainant from the local workshop and the total claim was passed for an amount of Rs. 3999.75.
In view of the above, it transpires that the complainant had not got the vehicle repaired through the authorized Maruti service station i.e. M/s Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. He had removed his vehicle without any intimation to the surveyor/OP and got the vehicle repaired through a private local workshop. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OP. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 02.01.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 55/11
02.01.16
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
