Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 596
Instituted on : 05.12.2018.
Decided on : 24.11.2023
Narender Singh age 37 years s/o Sh. Azad Singh R/o village-Badesra, District-Bhiwani.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.RajendraKinha Tower, IInd Floor, NR BajrangBhawan, Main Delhi Road, Jhang Colony, Rohtak-124001(Through its Branch Manager/Authorised Representative).
- The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. C/o Hafed District office, SCO-19-20 Ground Floor, Part-1, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana(Through its Branch Manager Rohtak).
…..….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are thathe is owner in possession of Scooter bearing registration No.HR-16S-9204 . The aforesaid scooter of the complainant was insured with opposite party with zero debt policy vide policy no.M0208084. The policy was valid from 21.03.2018 to 20.03.2019. The above said scooter of the complainant met with an accident on 17.10.2018 when it was being driven by his brother Anil Kumar. The accident took place due to sudden appearance of cow in front of scooter and after dashing into cow, the scooter dashed in divider and turned left side. Due to impact of this accident the scooter damaged badly. The matter was informed to the opposite party and on the asking of opposite party the complainant took his scooter to Lochab Honda, Rothak on 22.10.2018. The opposite party deputed the surveyor who after 2-3 days informed the complainant that the repair work of the scooter has been kept on hold by the opposite party till further orders but till today no intimation has been received by the complainant about the settlement of his claim from the opposite party. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to get repair complete repair work against zero dept. policy and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service for non-settlement of claim/repair work and Rs.17450/- as estimated cost of repair to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that on receipt of intimation, company has registered the claim and deputed Sh. Sunny Goel, Surveyor. After physical inspection of the damaged vehicle, the surveyor informed to the insured that there are some old damages which were not relevant to the present claim and hence these damages are not payable under the policy. Some parts and repair work can be allowed if the vehicle repaired and after submission of repair bills. At that time insured insisted for allowing the repair work including repair of old damages which were not relevant to the present claim lodged by the insured. The insured not get the repair work started hence the claim could not be processed further. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
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 10.02.2020. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/B to Ex./RW2/H but failed to conclude his evidence. Hence the evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 28.10.2022 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Through this complaint complainant has demanded an amount of estimated cost of repair of vehicle as Rs.17450/-. In the present complaint the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 17.10.2018 and the same was repaired by Lohchab Motors Co. Pvt.Ltd. on 09.08.2019. During period 17.10.2018 to 09.08.2019 the vehicle was remained within the possession of Lohchab Motors Pvt. Ltd. The respondent official filed a reply before this Commission after stating that respondent officials appointed surveyor Sh. Sanjay Goel to assess the loss. After physical inspection of the damaged vehicle the surveyor informed to the insured that there are some old damages which are not relevant to the present complaint and hence these damages are not payable under the policy. Insurance company further submitted in its written statement that some parts and repair work can be allowed if the vehicle is repaired and after submission of the repair bills. As per respondent officials the insured not got repaired his vehicle and has not submitted the repair bills with the insurance company. Hence the claim could not be processed further.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present complaint the vehicle met with an accident on 17.10.2018 and repaired on dated 09.08.2019. As per complainant the insurance company has not permitted the workshop to repair the vehicle. So the vehicle was repaired belatedly by the complainant on his own cost and he spent Rs.7947/- on the repair of the vehicle. The complainant mentioned the repair amount of the vehicle in his affidavit as Ex.C1. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the respondents. The surveyor issued two letters to the complainant which are placed on record by the respondent officials as Ex.RW2/E and Ex.RW2/F. Two more letters have been issued by the insurance company to the complainant on dated 25.03.2019 and 01.04.2019 as Ex.RW2/H and Ex.RW2/G respectively. The perusal of documents Ex.RW2/E itself shows that this letter has been issued on dated 15.03.2018 whereas the accident took place on 17.10.2018. Hence false and fabricated letter has been issued by the opposite party before the 7 months of accident. Complainant intimated the repairer well within time but the insurance company failed to allow the repairer regarding repair of the vehicle. The surveyor failed to place on record any document or photograph to prove the fact that there are some old damages in the vehicle in question. Moreover he has not mentioned any specific reason in his survey report that there are old damages in the vehicle in question. As such the act of repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs.7947/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.7947/-(Rupees seven thousand nine hundred and forty seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.12.2018 till its realization, to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. 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:
24.11.2023
.......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
......................................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
...........................................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
