Haryana

Karnal

CC/217/2020

Daya Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Abhimanyu Lather

06 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 217 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.25.06.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 06.01.2022

 

Daya Singh son of Shri Punjab Singh aged 51 years resident of # 165 block A Ansal Town Sector 36 Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. ground floor, SCO 19-20, c/o Hafed District Office, Sector 12 Karnal-132001, Haryana.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Abhimanyu Lather, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Ashok Vohra, counsel for opposite party.

                    

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle Honda City Car bearing registration no.HR-07U-8259 with the OP, vide policy no.MC432584, valid from 22.01.2020 to 21.01.2021. The said policy is a 0% debt policy or bumper to bumper policy. In this policy if a car gets any type of accidental damage then the insurance company will be liable for those damages. On 24.02.2020 car of the complainant got damaged because of an road accident and on 25.02.2020 complainant visited the body shop namely Courtesy Honda, Madhuban, Karnal for the claim as well as for the repair of the car. The complainant handed over the insurance policy to the surveyor and the necessary documents for taking the claim. The body shop worker completed his work on the damaged car and replaced the damaged parts whichever things were needed. They made an estimate amount of Rs.50219/- out of which they took Rs.8154/- from the complainant by saying that some parts were not covered in the claim and Rs.1000/- were deducted for filing charges. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed a written version raising preliminary objections maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that a claim intimation dated 25.02.2020 was received by the OP with regard to the accident dated 24.02.2020 of the insured vehicle bearing registration no.HR07U8259. The claim of the complainant was duly processed and OP on its part appointed Shri Jasvinder Singh, Company’s in house surveyor and loss assessor to carry out the survey work and assessment of the loss. It is further pleaded that the replacement cost of front bumper and front grill was not allowed under the insurance cover as the said parts were not damaged in the alleged accident and were pre-existing damaged. Further, the amount incurred i.e. Rs.878/- for consumables items was also not covered under the insurance policy obtained by the insured. The surveyor also deducted salvage cost of Rs.411/- and compulsory excess of Rs.1000/- and assessed the net payable amount Rs.42065/- as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the said amount duly disbursed to the repairer without any delay. Any difference between the surveyor’s assessment and invoice raised by the repairer is required to be borne by the complainant itself. It is further pleaded that the policy of the complainant is depreciation waiver policy for which the benefits were also given to the complainant in the reported claim. It is however clear that a depreciation waiver policy cannot be termed as bumper to bumper policy. It is further pleaded that a depreciation waiver covered under a motor insurance policy does not cover all the expenses incurred in repairing of a vehicle. A depreciation waiver only covers depreciation on parts which are covered in the insurance policy as such these parts are later distinguished from the ones not covered in the policy and are hence allowed by the Surveyor and approved by the company in cases of a partial loss. The benefits of depreciation waiver cover have also been specified under the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, insurance policy Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, receipt of bill of Rs.8154/- Ex.C5, tax invoice of Rs.50219/- Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 11.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Devense Kumar General Manager Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.RW2/A, surveyor report Ex.R1, insurance policy Ex.R2, claim intimation Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 07.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle with the OP. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.02.2020 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. In the accident the vehicle in question was damaged, the same got repaired and complainant spent Rs.50219/-on the repair of the vehicle but OP assessed only Rs.42065/- and deducted the remaining amount without any reason. Hence, complainant prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that the surveyor of the OP has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42065/- for the fresh damage only. The replacement cost of front bumper and front grill was not allowed under the insurance cover as the said parts were not damaged in the alleged accident and were old and pre-existing damaged. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. It is also admitted fact that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident, the surveyor had been appointed by the OP, who assessed the loss of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.42065/- and the same was paid to the complainant.

10.           As per the version of the complainant, he got repaired his vehicle and paid an amount of Rs.50219/- to Lally Automobiles (P) Ltd., but the OP has only paid Rs.42065/-/- instead of Rs.50219/-, therefore he prayed for direction to the OP to pay the remaining amount.

11.           Now the question arose before us whether an amount of Rs.8154/- was rightly deducted by the OP or not?

12.           As per the survey report Ex.R1, the replacement cost of front bumper and front grill was not allowed under the insurance cover as the said parts were not damaged in the alleged accident as the same was pre-existing damaged. The onus to prove it lies upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove its version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. OP has not placed on file the photographs of the vehicle in question to prove its version. On the other hand to prove his version complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he clearly mentioned that on 24.02.2020 the car in question met with an accident and he repaired the same from Courtesy Honda Lally Automobiles (P) Ltd. Karnal and spent Rs.50219/-. In support of his version complainant also placed on record copy of Tax Invoice Ex.CW6. It is also admitted case that insurance policy was 0% depth policy or bumper to bumper policy. So, the abovesaid deduction is not justified. Hence, we found no substance in the contention of the OP. Thus, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while deducting the amount of Rs.8154/-, therefore, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.

13.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.8154/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the abovesaid amount will not paid to the complainant within stipulated period then abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.01.2022                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 (Vineet Kaushik)              

      Member