Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/104

Nazar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               104 of 2018

Date of Institution:     15.06.2018

Date of Decision :       24.04.2019

 

1.  Nazar Singh son of Hardial Singh r/o Kothe Jaildar Avtar Singh, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
2. Mandeep Singh s/o Nazar Singh son of Hardial Singh r/o Kothe Jaildar Avtar Singh, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Sadan C-I, District Centre Saket New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector-28A, 3^rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160002, through its Manager.
3. Raj Paul Singhal Surveyor r/o # 13385, Namdev Marg, 30Ft Road, Bathinda

....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

              OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                   cc no. 104 of 2018

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.55,520/- on account insurance claim for damage of his vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that car of complainant make Nissan Micra XV, bearing Registration No PB 04R-0400 was fully insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy bearing no.50639153 valid for the period from 15.02.2017 to 14.02.2018. It is submitted that the policy was valid against all kinds of risks. It is submitted that during the subsistence of policy in question, on 29.01.2018, insured car met with an accident near Chahal Road, Faridkot  and collided with divider. On 30.01.2018, complainant approached AVC Motors Nissan, Bathinda Service Station and their employee inspected the vehicle and found after checking that AC Compressor and bumper of the car was damaged and he also informed OP-1 and OP-2, who appointed a Surveyor OP-3, who investigated the matter, took photographs of damaged car and asked complainant to get repaired the vehicle. It is submitted that AC Compressor and front bumper of the car was damaged and for approval of OPs for replacement of AC Compressor and bumper was sent to OPs, but they did not give any response to complainants. Complainants made several requests to OPs to settle the claim, but they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the

cc no. 104 of 2018

other and when complainant did not get any response from OPs, complainants got replaced the AC Compressor themselves and paid Rs.55,520/-from their own pocket. OPs repudiated the claim of complainants vide letter dated 23.03.2018 wherein stated that damages claimed by complainants are not relevant as compressor belt and engine protection cover was not fitted from the vehicle. Thereafter, complainants contacted Ops and requested them to make payment of their genuine insurance claim but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                      The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26.06.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and OP-2 filed written statement wherein admitted that vehicle of complainant was insured with Ops vide policy in question, but have denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that on receipt of intimation from complainant, they appointed Surveyor, who investigated the matter and assess the loss caused to vehicle.

 

cc no. 104 of 2018

Surveyor gave Survey Report and on perusal of that report, it was noticed that damages claimed by the complainant are not relevant to the cause of loss as narrated in claim form and complainant has manipulated the entire story that said accident occurred due to an animal which suddenly came in front of their car and car collided with divider and there was no external impact on car. From the version of complainant no.1 it is clear that damages claimed are not relevant to the cause of action. On inspection of car it was found that air conditioner compression belt was not fitted with it and was already removed from it and engine protection cover was also not there and was removed from the vehicle. It is further averred that complainants have not disclosed the true facts and tried to conceal and misrepresent the real facts. As per Ops, air conditioner compressor and front bumper of the car was not damaged. It is averred that as per report made by Surveyor, no DDR or FIR was got registered by complainant with Police and as per rules and regulations of policy, replacement of air conditioner compressor and front bumper is not the liability of answering OPs. It is averred that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. Answering OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 2. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                         OP-3 appeared in the Forum and filed written version wherein denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong

cc no. 104 of 2018

and incorrect and asserted that he was deputed by Insurance Company to conduct the survey and he assessed the loss as per terms and conditions of the policy and gave his report with observations and he has no role in making payment of claim and claim sought is to be given by Insurance Company. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. It is observed that after filing the reply, OP-3 did not appear in the Forum on any hearing and therefore, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.03.2019.

6                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan as Ex OP-5 and documents Ex OP-1 to 4 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and OP-2 and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

9                                              From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainants is

cc no. 104 of 2018

that insured vehicle of complainant no.1 met with an accident on 29.01.2018 during the subsistence of insurance policy and was got damaged in that accident. Due intimation regarding said accident was given to Ops, but they repudiated the claim of complainant on false grounds. In reply, OPs denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that no such accident occurred and claim of complainant is not payable. To prove his pleadings ld counsel or complainants has placed on record copy of insurance copy that clearly states that vehicle of complainant no.1 was fully insured with Ops for the period from 15.02.2017 to 14.02.2018. Thus, it is clear that accident dated 29.01.2018 occurred during the subsistence of insurance policy in question. Ex C-2 further proves the pleading of complainants that they took their vehicle for repair to AVC Nissan Service Station, Bathinda for repair purpose as insured car of complainant no.1 met with an accident and hit the divider.  Ex C-3 is copy of claim intimation form that  reveals that complainant duly informed OPs regarding accident occurred on 29.01.2018. Ex C-3 A is original bill worth Rs.55,520/- dated 21.02.2018 issued by AVC Motors Nissan, Bathinda from where complainant got repaired his car. Ex C-6 is repudiation letter issued by Ops to complainant vide which they rejected the genuine claim of complainants on false grounds. Ex C-7  and Ex C-8 are copies of documents that depict the correspondence occurred between complainant no.2 and Service Station AVC Motors Nissan Bathinda, from which it is

 

cc no. 104 of 2018

made out that air conditioner compressor of insured vehicle needed replacement as it was damaged in said accident.    

10                                            On perusal of documents it is observed that air conditioner compressor of vehicle and front bumper were badly damaged and AC compressor required replacement because it was fully damaged in said accident, but OPs repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that a/c compressor belt was not fitted with vehicle and it was already removed and engine protection cover of the vehicle was also not fitted with it.  From the pleadings of complainant it is clear that after the accident, they brought their vehicle to AVC Motors Nissan, Bathinda where mechanic of service station opened the vehicle for the purpose of checking and inspecting the damages caused to the vehicle. A/C compressor belt was not fitted with it and engine protection cover was not fitted with vehicle due to the reason that body of car was opened by mechanic of service for checking the vehicle  to identify the damages and for repair purpose. It is inappropriate on the part of OPs to repudiate the claim of complainant on false and incorrect grounds.  Complainant has produced cogent and vital documents to prove his case. Evidence produced by complainant is authentic and is beyond any doubt.

11                                From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by parties respectively, we are of considered opinion that there is  deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 2 in repudiating the genuine claim of complainants on false grounds. Hence,

cc no. 104 of 2018

complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to make payment of Rs.51,546/- as assessed by Surveyor vide its Report Ex OP-1, 2/2 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization on account of damage caused to the insured vehicle.  OP-1 and OP-2 are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainants as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by them as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainants shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-3 stands dismissed as it has no role in making payment of insurance claim. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.04.2019       

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

Member                         President