DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 338 of 6.9.2017

                                      Decided on:         9.7.2021

Surinder Pal Singh aged about 60 years, son of Sh.Chuni Lal, resident of House No.104, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at 5-C/1, Rajbaha Road, Patiala , District Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Regional office at IFFCO House, 3^rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Regional Manager.
3. Sukhdev Automobiles, SCO No.4-5, Nishant Bagh, Near Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY              

                                      None for the complainant

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

                                      Sh.Karaminder Singh, counsel for OP No.3                 

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Surinder Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle Royal Enfield Motor bearing registration No.PB-11-BR-5708, engine No.093252 and chassis No.40484 having purchased the same from OP No.3.The complainant got the vehicle comprehensively insured with the OPs for the period from 28.2.2016 to 27.2.2017 with the IDV of Rs.1,40,000/- and paid the insurance premium of Rs.2226.43p.
3. It is averred that on 22.9.2016 the son of the complainant namely Harpinder Singh, holder of valid driving licence was coming from Sirhind to Patiala on the said motor cycle and met with an accident. In the said accident he sustained injuries and the motorcycle badly damaged. The complainant duly informed the OPs regarding the accident and also submitted claim form. The vehicle was preserved with OP No.3 for repairs and evaluation of loss immediately after accident. It is averred that it is reported by OP No.3 vide certificate dated 6.10.2016 that the said vehicle is not repairable. Surveyor was also deputed by OPs No.1&2 who did not give positive response. It is further averred that vide letter dated 24.11.2016, the complainant was informed to get the vehicle repaired and submit the invoice of repair. It is further averred that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated without any logical reason stating that, “it is observed that the vehicle is lying at the workshop without getting it repair”, which is illegal and arbitrary and against the certificate issued by OP No.3 dated 6.10.2016. The complainant got sent legal notice upon the OPs but despite receipt of the legal notice the OPs did not give any response. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,40,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from 22.9.2016 till actual realization; to pay Rs.10,000/- received by OP No.3 under the garb of repair of the vehicle in question; to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and also costs of proceedings.
4. Upon notice OPs appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
5. In the written reply filed by OPs No.1&2,in the  preliminary objections, it is submitted that the complainant has obtained one insurance policy No.96775061 of Motor cycle No.PB-11BR-5707 covering the period 28.2.2016 to 27.2.2017.It is further submitted that during the currency of the policy, the complainant  intimated on 22.9.2016 with regard to the accidental loss of the insured motorcycle and claim No.36773925 was registered with the insurance company. The competent authority of the OPs appointed surveyor IHSLA Sh.Ankur Walia, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss who vide his report has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-payable to the complainant on submission of repair bills. However, the complainant neither get the motorcycle repaired nor he submitted the repair bills despite letters dated 8.12.2016 and 24.11.2016 written in this regard to the complainant. As such the claim of the complainant was closed. There is thus no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, the OPs reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections. As such the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In the reply filed by OP No.3, it raised preliminary objections that the complaint against the OP is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and dragged the OP into unnecessary and unwarranted litigations.
8. On merits, it is submitted that the motor cycle in question was brought in the workshop of OP in damaged condition for its repair and was preserved for its examination and to conduct of the motor cycle at the instance of the complainant .The complainant was informed that the parts of the motor cycle which will be found to have been damaged will not be repaired and will be inserted, regarding which certificate dated 6.10.2016 was issued. It is also admitted that the OP obtained he cheque of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for the replacement of the damaged parts of the motor cycle with new one but thereafter the complainant disagree and after deducting labour charges Rs.6500/- was refunded to the complainant. As such there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 &2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan, G.M. of the OPs, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh.Ankur Walia, surveyor alongwith documents Exs.OP3 to OP7 and closed the evidence.
11. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sukhdev Singh, partner of Sukhdev Automobile alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
12. As none has appeared on behalf of the complainant, we have heard the ld. counsel for the opposite parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The ld. counsel for OPs have argued that this is not the case of total loss. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant can get the motor cycle repaired and submit the bill to the insurance company and he will pay the genuine bill amount spent on the repair of the motor cycle.
14. To this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint; Ex.C1 is special power of attorney,Ex.C2 is  the insurance policy of Iffco Tokio of the motor cycle in question for Rs.1,40,000/- and the premium of Rs.222226.43 was paid and this policy was valid from 28.2.2016 to 27.2.2017,Ex.C3 is copy of legal notice, Ex.C4 is postal receipt, Ex.C5 is letter of Sukhdev Automobile, in which it is stated that the bullet motor cycle cannot be repaired,Ex.C6 is a letter written by the insurance company to the complainant. It is mentioned in the letter that the complainant can get the motor cycle repaired and thereafter submit the repair invoice, Ex.C7 is letter written by the complainant to Iffco Tokio.
15. On the other hand, Sukhdev Singh has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan, General Manager.He has deposed that the surveyor has submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.It is also deposed that it is only payable after submission of original repair bills. The   complainant has not got his motor cycle repaired and in this respect letters dated 8.12.2016 and 24.11.2016 were written to him, Ex.OP2 is estimate, Ex.OP3 to OP7 are the remaining documents of the OPs.
16. Admittedly the Bullet Motor cycle No.PB-11-BR-5708 of the complainant was insured with the OPs No.1&2 for the period from 28.2.2016 to 27.2.2017 and premium of Rs.2226.43p was paid. It is pleaded hat on 22.9.2016 when the said motor cycle was driven by his son Harpinder Singh who was having a valid driving licence was coming from Sirhind to Patiala, met with an accident and suffered injuries and the motor cycle was badly damaged. It is stated that the motor cycle is total loss and cannot be repaired. So the company be directed to pay the total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- alongwith other charges to the complainant.
17. There are photographs of the motor cycle No.PB-11-BR-5707 but from these photographs it is not proved that motor cycle has become total loss. Admittedly the vehicle was insured with OPs No.1&2.It is specifically pleaded by OPs No.1&2 that as per their surveyor the total loss was Rs.50,000/- and complainant can get the motor cycle repaired and thereafter submit the original repair bill with them.There is no expert report on the file produced by the complainant which can show that the motor cycle is beyond  repair.
18. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent that the complainant can get the motor cycle in question repaired from authorized agency and he will submit the bill to OPs No.1&2 and whole of the bill amount will be reimbursed to the complainant by OPs No.1&2. They are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and further Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation expenses to the complainant.

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the repair bill of the motor cycle in question from the complainant.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.7.2021         

                                         Vinod Kumar Gulati           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                    President