Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 453.
Instituted on : 03.08.2017.
Decided on : 13.03.2019.
Shamsher, age 54 year, son of Sh. Rai Singh, Resident of H.No. 545, Village Ishmaila 9B, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Manager.
2 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Shop No. 10, Huda Complex, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Devrat Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Behl, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of Apache motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-12Z-9321 which was insured from opposite parties vide policy No. 99151437 which is valid from 23.07.2016 to 22.01.2017. On 01.11.2016, the complainant met with an accident and the said motorcycle was damaged completely. After that complainant informed the opposite parties and they appointed the surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle and registered the claim of the complainant as claim No.I-8RNR570. After that complainant repaired his motorcycle through authorized Workshop of Rehan Auto(TVS) and spent Rs.31,052/- approximately on the repair of vehicle. Opposite parties appointed Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Loss Assessor to assess the loss and to submit his report. Complainant submitted all the documents alongwith the original bills with the opposite party and fulfill the formalities. After that, complainant received a letter dated 12.01.2017 from the surveyor to deposit the original bills of the repair of the motorcycle. The complainant told him that he has already been submitted the same on 02.01.2016 with them. Complainant again sent the duplicate bill through e-mails dated 27.01.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017, but the opposite parties neither released the payment of bills of the complainant nor the opposite parties provided the surveyor’s report to the complainant despite repeated requests and closed the claim file without any reason. That the act of opposite parties of not disbursing the alleged amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to disburse the amount of Rs.75,052/-(which includes Rs.31,052/- incurred by the complainant on repairing of his vehicle and Rs.23,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till actual realization, as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply submitted that Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly licensed by the IRDA who has assessed the loss and requested to the insured to submit original Bill for repair etc. and produce the vehicle for re-inspection alongwith salvage but despite of reminders sent by the Surveyor and company, insured has not submitted the same alongwith production of the vehicle for re-inspection etc. Hence after legal process of the claim, company has rightly issued No claim letter to the insured. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite parties.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, also tendered document Ex.C9 in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 11.03.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. Thereafter, evidence of the opposite parties was closed by court order vide order dated 25.10.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the respondent officials placed on record four documents i.e. Ex.R1 as survey report issued by the surveyor Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma on dated 27.10.2017, letter issued by the surveyor dated 28.11.2016 as Ex.R2, a reminder was also issued to the complainant by respondent insurance company on dated 21.01.2017 for supplying the original repair bill and also to produce the vehicle for re-inspection alongwith salvage, which is Ex.R3 and a letter was also issued on dated 09.02.2017 by the insurance company regarding same facts which is Ex.R4. On the other hand, complainant’s version is that he had already submitted the original bills with the respondent insurance company and he also handed over all the relevant and required documents to the surveyor as and when he demanded the same. As per the complainant he had already submitted original bills and thereafter he also sent duplicate bills through emails dated 27.01.2017, 18.02.2017 and 20.02.2017. At the time of arguments, the complainant has placed on record document Ex.C9 having 10 leaves. Through this document the complainant has placed on record a certificate issued by the TVS Rehan Auto issued on dated 16.01.2019 alongwith other relevant documents i.e. a certificate issued by the Rehan Auto at page number two issued on dated 01.12.2018, the copy of driving licence, copy of policy and estimate of Rehan Auto alongwith other documents. The perusal of these documents itself shows that the Rehan Auto certified that the original bills had already handed over to the surveyor of Iffco-Tokio Gen. Insurance on dated 02.12.16 and the customer had already paid an amount of Rs.31052/- regarding the repair of damaged vehicle on dated 30.11.2016. He further submitted that all the documents which were required for the claim had also been handed over to the surveyor. Moreover, he further submitted that a copy of bills were also sent to the surveyor through whatsapp on dated 27.01.2017. As per the page no.2 of Ex.C9, Rehan Auto further submitted that they had further handed over a copy of bills through courier to the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Com. on dated 15.04.2017 vide courier Receipt No.RH0249419891N. After considering the submission of Rehan Auto, certificate issued by Rehan Auto and going through all the relevant documents, we came to the conclusion that the complainant or the repairer of the vehicle Rehan Auto had already submitted the certificate and relevant documents with the insurance company. On the other hand, we have also perused the motor vehicle certificate report submitted by the surveyor on dated 27.02.2017 which is Ex.R1, which shows that all the required and relevant documents had already been submitted. As per report of surveyor Ex.R1, the claim documents status is as under:-
Cancelled Cheque Received
Original bills Not required
Duly Complete Claim Form Received
Verified Driving Licence Received
Discharge Voucher Not Required
Estimate From Garage Received
Others Received
Verified Registration Certificate Received
Original Receipt Not required
Satisfaction Voucher Received
Meaning thereby, all the required and relevant documents had already been received by the surveyor but he had not assessed the claim for the reasons best known to him. As per the surveyor itself, the original bills were not required. Why the surveyor of the insurance company issued so many letters to the complainant to submit the documents whereas the documents had already been submitted, which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs. 31052/-(Rupees thirty one thousand fifty two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.08.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
13.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
