Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 384.
Instituted on : 14.08.2018.
Decided on : 25.07.2022.
Narender Kumar son of Sh. Lajpat Rai R/o H.No. 100, Sector 2 Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Minerva Complex, Raj Market Ambala Cantt. Ambala through its Manager.
- Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at SCF 23, 2nd Floor, Subhash Park, near Indusind Bank, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.N.Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint as per complainant are that complainant is registered owner of Car No. HR-12AE-7964 and the vehicle insured from the opposite party vide policy No. ITG/82369664 for the period from 25.08.2017 to 24.08.2018. On 30.06.2018, Mr. Sasaubhagya Mehtani was driving the said vehicle and going towards Rewari and suddenly the left side front tyre blew off and due to this, both the tyres of said vehicle have damaged. On that complainant immediately informed the opposite party and requested them to make the payment of amount of claim on account of damage of tyres i.e. Rs.16800/- but no claim has been paid to the complainant. The complainant repeatedly approached to opposite party but they have been avoiding on one pretext or the other. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.16,800/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of damage till payment and Rs.10,000/- to the on account of unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that damages to the tyre and tubes are not payable without any accidental external impact on the vehicle, such damages are excluded under section 1(B)(2) of the policy. The vehicle was surveyed by Mr. Manoj Puri Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly licenced by the IRDA, a statutory body who has mentioned that on 30.06.2018 Mr. SasaubhagyaMehtani was driving the said vehicle and suddenly the left side front tyre blew off. The company shall not be liable to make any payment as per the policy terms and conditions under section 1(2) in respect of “damages to tyre and tubes unless the vehicle is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% to the cost of replacement but in this case, the vehicle had not met with an accident”. Hence there is no liability of the company. After legal process, the company has rightly ‘no claim’ the case as the claim is not tenable as per the policy terms and conditions and the same was conveyed to the insured vide registered AD letter dated 31.10.2018. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.02.2020. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1/A to Ex.R4/A, affidavit Ex.RW1/C, and closed his evidence on dated 03.03.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the documents placed on record by both the parties, it is observed that after receiving the information the respondents deputed the surveyor Sh. Manoj Puri regarding the assessment of loss. As per report Ex.R1/A, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.9476/- regarding the tyres of his vehicle. The surveyor has suggested in his report that claim is not payable because the tyres have not been damaged in an accident. He further submitted that claim is not payable because the vehicle had not met with any accident. He further submitted that the vehicle was going towards Rewari and suddenly the left side front tyre blew off and due to this impact the complainant suffered damages in the tyres of the vehicle. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per Ex.C1, the complainant spent an amount of Rs.18300/- on replacing of two tyres including the labour charges. In the present case the complainant has pleaded that suddenly the left side tyre blew off and due to this impact both the tyres of the vehicle have damaged. In our view if in any running vehicle, if one tyre becomes damage, it effects the other tyre also. In this way the complainant suffered loss in 2 tyres of the vehicle in question. As per pleadings, the incident itself proves that when the damage occurs in a running car, it impacts on the entire vehicle. As per the respondents the complainant has pleaded wrong facts in the complaint and he has given false and wrong information to the surveyor or the insurance company. But we came to the conclusion that complainant has suffered loss of tyres in running car and hence the damage falls under the accident and as such opposite party is liable to pay the amount spent by the complainant on the replacement and fitting of tyres. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C1.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.18300/-(Rupees eighteen thousand and three hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.14.08.2018 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.07.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
