Haryana

Karnal

CC/105/2020

Jai Bhagwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jagmal Singh Mandhan

15 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 105 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.17.02.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 15.01.2021

 

Jai Bhagwan aged about 50 years son of Shri Dayanand, resident of H.No.10, Gali No.1, R.K.Puram, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant

                                              Versus

 

1.     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. office Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017, through its Sr. Manager/CEO/ Authorized Signatory.

2.     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office at HAFED building, Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite parties

 

           Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Complainant in person.

                Shri A.K. Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his car make Hyundai i10 Grand Astaa 1.1. bearing registration No.HR-05-AM-7070 with the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as to OPs), vide policy no.1-16T5UE18/M9422979, which is valid from 09.08.2019 to 08.08.2020. On 17.11.2019 the complainant was returning from village Dupedi, District Karnal and while the complainant reached near under construction Toll Plaza situated at middle of Pakka Khera to point at about 7.25 p.m. then in the meantime a vagabond calf came in front of vehicle of the complainant and in order to save the vagabond calf, the complainant turned his vehicle towards right side and due to which the vehicle of the complainant struck with a pebble/barricade laying on the road and due to this accident the vehicle of the complainant has badly damaged and stopped there and not restart again. Immediately, complainant sent the intimation in this regard to the OP and requested to sent a surveyor to inspect the vehicle but  due to late hours the employer of the OPs advised the complainant to took the vehicle at his place of residence and the surveyor will inspect the vehicle there. Complainant after facing so many difficulties approached to his house in late hours and on the next day he hires a towing vehicle/crane for towing the damaged vehicle from point to Divine Motors, Kurukshetra and for that purpose complainant paid Rs.3000/- to the Kaka Crane Services, Devi Lal Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal. On 19.11.2019 one surveyor of OP namely Jagpreet visited to Divine Motors and inspect the damaged  vehicle and got prepared the estimate report amounting to Rs.75,000/- and the said surveyor told the complainant to got repaired his vehicle and insurance company will make the payment of repair. On the assurance of surveyor of OP, complainant repaired the vehicle and paid Rs.68,116/-to Divine Motors, Kurukshetra, vide invoice no.1277 dated 16.12.2019. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to disburse the claim amount but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not supplied the necessary documents i.e. NEFT/Bank Account details & ii) Final Repair invoice alongwith supporting bills, cash receipt and depreciation receipts. The said documents demanded by the OPs, vide letter dated 21.05.2020 for the purpose of settlement of the claim but complainant failed to submit the same, hence, OPs left with no other option but to close the claim file as non-compliance of documents and the decision of the company duly conveyed to the complainant, vide letter dated 03.06.2020. It is further submitted that the complainant intimated a claim to the OPs with regard of accident of his vehicle. The claim was duly registered and one Shri Bharat Bhushan was appointed to carry out the survey work and assessment of liability of company as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant also submitted filled and signed claim form to the surveyor. The cause of loss as described by the complainant at para no.6 of the claim form is being reproduced as under:

“while coming from Jind to Karnal then all of sudden a dumper coming at a high speed tried to overtake me then I turned my vehicle and it over ride on a big stone and it damaged.”

The surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and notice that there is no direct impact on the engine of the vehicle and the engine related losses claimed by the insured are consequential in nature hence the same are not covered under the policy obtained by the insured, hence the same were not allowed by the surveyor. The surveyor however allow the replacement of Pan Oil Chamber which is the only part damaged in the accident in question and the other losses of internal parts of engine are not occurred due to the accident rather due to the own negligence of insured the engine of the vehicle got seized due prolonged use of vehicle without getting it repaired after the accident. The cover for expenses incurred in repair or replacement due to consequential loss/damage of engine are not covered under the policy obtained by the insured for his vehicle unless an add-on cover of engine protection is taken by insured under the insurance policy by paying additional premium. The fact regarding non-coverage of engine loss was duly conveyed to the complainant, vide letter dated 12.12.2019. But complainant instead to supplying the requested documents filed the present complaint. The surveyor assesses the net liability of the company to the tune of Rs.2590/- and the said assessed amount was not paid to the complainant as the complainant did not submit his NEFT detail and proof of payment to workshop etc. there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.CW2/A proprietor of M/s Kaka Crane Services, affidavit of Vijay Kumar partner of M/s Divine Motors Ex.CW3/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of bill/invoice of Divine Motors Kurukshetra Ex.C3, copy of bill/cash memo of Kaka Crane Service Ex.C4, photo of accidental car Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C10 and receipt Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on 21.12.2020 vide his separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Gupta Ex.OP1, affidavit of Bharat Bhushan IRDAI surveyor Ex.OP2, copy of request letter dated 12.12.2019 Ex.O1 and Ex.O2, copy of claim form Ex.O3, report of surveyor Ex.O4, motor final survey report Ex.O5 and postal receipt Ex.O6 and closed the evidence on 11.1.2021 vide separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant in brief, is that, complainant got insured his car make Hyundai i10 Grand Astaa 1.1 with OPs. On 17.11.2019 the said car met with an accident and intimation in this regard was given to OP. Shri Bharat Bhushan was appointed as surveyor by the OPs, who inspected the vehicle and prepared his report of loss. The said vehicle was got repaired by the complainant from Divine Motors, Kurukshetra, who charged an amount of Rs.68,116/- for repairing of abovesaid vehicle but surveyor of the OPs assessed the loss only Rs.2590/- and thus act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.             On the other hand, the case of OPs in nutshell, is that, on receiving the intimation, the OPs appointed Shri Bharat Bhushan as surveyor, who assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2590/- but the same has not been paid to the complainant as he has not supplied the documents which were demanded vide letter dated 21.05.2020.  

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. Intimation in this regard was given to the OPs. OPs appointed Shri Bharat Bhushan, as surveyor, who surveyed the vehicle in question and prepared the survey report Ex.O5 and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.2590/-. The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs on the ground that complainant failed to submit the following information:-

1. NEFT/Bank account details
2. Final Repair Invoice along with supporting bills, cash receipt and depreciation receipts.                

 and there is no other ground to close the claim of the complainant.

9.             Learned counsel for OPs argued that OPs has sent reminder letter Ex.O1 dated 21.05.2020 and letter Ex.O2 dated 03.06.2020 wherein it is requested to the complainant to submit his account details as well as final repair bills, etc. but the complainant failed to supply the same and due to non-submission of the aforesaid documents, the claim of the complainant has been closed. Learned counsel for OP placed reliance on Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Versus Ring Road Honda and others, revision petition No.1463 of 2009 decided on 15.01.2019.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel for the complainant argued that no such type of letter has been received from the OPs. In this regard, the OPs have failed to place on record any receiving from the complainant. The alleged letters were lateron, prepared by the OPs in order to fill up the lacuna. The complainant has submitted all the requisite documents as required by the surveyor but OPs started harassing the complainant on one pretext or the other while preparing such type of manipulated letters.  

11.           During course of evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, proprietor of M/s Kaka Crane Services who has issued bill amounting to Rs.3000/- dated 18.11.2019 Ex.C4 for towing the vehicle from the place of accident to the workshop. Complainant also tendered the affidavit of Vijay Kumar, partner of M/s Divine Motors (Ex.CW3/A), where the vehicle of the complainant has been repaired and issued cash-invoice amounting to Rs.68,116/- (Ex.C3).

12.           As per the Ex.C3 cash invoice issued by M/s Divine Motors and Ex.C4 crane bill, the complainant has paid Rs.71,116/- for repairing as well as towing of the vehicle in question but surveyor of the OPs assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2590/- only. Complainant examined the partner of Divine Motors and owner of Kaka Crane Services and they proved the bills Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Hence, the complainant has proved his case by leading cogent evidence. On the other hand, OPs have failed to rebut the evidence led by the complainant. OPs have also failed to prove the criteria on which the surveyor of OPs has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2590/- only. It is very surprising fact that when the complainant paid ₹3000/- only for towing of his vehicle and also spent ₹68,116/- for repairing of his vehicle, then how can the surveyor can assess the total amount in his report as ₹2590/- less than even the amount of towing of vehicle.  It presumed that the report of the surveyor is biased one and is unjustified.  Further, another plea taken by the OPs that the complainant has failed to supply the documents i.e. Account details as well as final bills is not tenable because it is the complainant who has grudge to receive the amount which has incurred by him for repairing of its vehicle. Moreover, the OPs have also failed to place on record any receipt regarding receiving the letters Ex.O1 and O2 by the complainant. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered views that act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled for Rs.71,116/- (Rs.68,116/- for repairing of vehicle and Rs.3000/- for towing of vehicle) alongwith compensation and litigation expenses etc.

13.           The case law relied upon by learned counsel for OP is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay ₹71,116/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and ₹5500/- for the litigation expense. However, OPs are at liberty to recover the amount of ₹25,500/- being compensation and litigation expenses, from the surveyor who has prepared biased survey report Ex.O5. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:15.01.2021

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                         Member