DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 223 of 6.6.2017

                                      Decided on:   30.5.2019

Lakhvir Singh aged about 36 years S/o Sh.Jagtar Singh, resident of Assa Singh Street, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       IFFCO Tokio General insurance Co. Ltd. having its registered office at IFFCO Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.

2.       Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,5-C/1, Sheetal Complex, Ground Floor, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member                                            

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Achhar Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OPs.                                 

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This is the complaint filed by Lakhvir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) under Sections 11 to 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Gurgaon and Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Patiala (here-in-after referred to as OPs).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant availed the services from OP No.2 and got insured his vehicle i.e. Royal Enfield Bullet STD UCE, 350 CC Make 2016 bearing registration No.PB 11BW 7761 vide policy = 1-DYK70P3, P400 Policy- 30370252 for the period 31.3.2017 to 30.3.2018 and OP No.2 agreed  for no claim bonus discount up to 20%. The policy was duly endorsed by OP No.2 agent after proper verification and the same was consented by OP No.1.
3. It is further alleged that complainant used the two wheeler as described  above for his domestic, pleasure purpose and for his business /profession.
4. It is also alleged that vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 20.4.2017 and complainant rang up the agent of OP No.2 to check the condition of the vehicle and parked the vehicle in the authorized Royal Enfield Agency at Nabha. After checking the vehicle, the mechanical section of agency prepared the list of damaged parts of the vehicle. The parts of the vehicle which were damaged were chassis, head light, mud guard, handle bar, handle T, Front Wheel shaft & handle weight.
5. It is further contended that officials of Royal Enfield agency contacted OP No.2 for the purpose of reimbursement of damaged parts and OP’s surveyor Mr.S.M.S.Sethi checked the vehicle in Royal Enfield agency at Nabha.The complainant was also present at the time when the surveyor inspected the vehicle but the surveyor behaved in a very unruly, unethical, irresponsible and in an adamant manner. The surveyor was not satisfied with the report/damaged chart prepared by the Royal Enfield Agency.
6. It is also averred that the complainant visited the office of OP No.2  so many times as well as made telephonically calls but OP No.2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also served a legal notice to OP No.2 at its office at Patiala but OP No.2 neither turned up nor bothered to reply the legal notice.
7. By this complaint, the complainant has prayed for the reimbursement as per the policy to the tune of Rs.17,275/-, on account of replacement of damaged parts of his vehicle besides damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and also the counsel fee to the tune of Rs.7500/-.
8. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs . OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version.
9. In reply, the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complainant  has obtained a two wheeler comprehensive insurance policy No.30370252 covering the vehicle No.PB-11BW-7761 with effect from 31.3.2017 to 30.3.2018.The complainant  intimated  the insurance company with regard to loss of vehicle at 2.30PM on 19.4.2017 at Hira Enclave, Nabha. After receiving intimation, competent authority deputed Sh.S.M.S.Sethi, approved, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. The complainant did not co-operate with the surveyor for assessment of the loss. The complainant was requested vide letters dated 19.6.2017 & 28.6.2017 for the production of under repair snaps, final snaps after repair and claim bill but the complainant neither cooperate with the surveyor nor complied with his letters. The surveyor submitted his report dated 18.7.2017. The entire non-cooperation was on account of the fact that the complainant was adamant for replacement of the chassis which was in repairable condition and the complainant has refused to get the chassis repaired. The surveyor vide his report dated 18.7.2017 assessed the liability of the company with regard to loss to the tune of Rs.6367/- arising out of the accident dated 19.4.2017.After receiving  the report of the surveyor, the insurance company vide letter dated 20.7.2017 has requested the complainant to produce the under repair snaps of chassis and other parts and to produce the vehicle for final survey after repairs but the complainant neither  turned up nor has given any reply. One final letter was also issued to the complainant for the compliance but the complainant has not complied with the same. The complainant was informed that in case the documents are not received within 10 days of this final reminder then it will be presumed that the complainant is not interested in getting the claim and the claim of the complainant will be treated as “No Claim”. Insurance company at no point has ever denied with regard to the payment of the genuine claim.
10. On merits, the OPs have controverted all the material averments of the complainant and reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections. The OPs have emphasized that the complainant was adamant in getting the chassis of the motor cycle replaced whereas the same was in repairable condition. In the end, the OPs prayed for the dismissal  of the complaint.
11. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
12. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA, copy of legal notice, Ex.C1, original postal receipt,Ex.C2, copy of policy,Ex.C3, copy of RC,Ex.C4, copy of repair bill of Partap Automobile,Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
13. In order to rebut this evidence, the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Ranjan , copy of policy,Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 28.7.2017,Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 20.7.2017,Ex.OP3, copy of final survey report, Ex.OP4, copy of claim form, Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 28.6.2017,Ex.OP6, copy of letter dated 19.6.2017,Ex.OP7.
14. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case file.
15. Ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the chassis is vital part being foundation of  vehicle. The decision of the surveyor that the chassis was repairable was arbitrary and no reason or cause for the same has been recorded. The surveyor over looked the safety angles and has not visualized the consequences if the vehicle is driven with repaired chassis in future. The ld. counsel for the complainant has also contended that if the vehicle in question is plied with repaired  chassis on bumpy roads or have to suddenly apply the brakes due to non-visible speed breaker or pot or due to some other unforeseeable  reason, it would not only dangerous to the life of driver of the vehicle but also can harm the  passerby to any extent. Moreover, it is also argued that the dimensions and other standards of chassis are determined and fixed by specialized engineers of the manufacturing companies for their respective vehicles and they have computerized equipments which are not available in the open market. Only manually damaged chassis frame can be repaired and the person who repairs such parts will not be in a position to certify that such repaired part is 100%matched with original frame of chassis. He also contended that if one forces his whims and fancies unilaterally and expect everyone to adhere submissively there is bound to chos and the same thing has happened in the instant case and that is why the report of the surveyor has been challenged by way of this complaint. The ld. counsel for the complainant also stated that the damaged part of the motor cycle has been got replaced including chassis from Partap Automobviles-Patiala Road, Nabha on 9.6.2019 , the bill of which is Ex.C5 and the complainant has made the entire payment of Rs.17211/- from his own pocket. He has also contended that non replying to letters of the OPs by the complainant in no way be construed as impediment as far as the claim of the replacement of damaged parts. It is also stressed hat it was the surveyor who was adamant and not the complainant as alleged.

In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel for the complainant hasrelied upon the citations:

1. Sanjiv Khandelwal Versus Oriental Insurance Company 1991(2)C.P.J.673, decided by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Bombay.
2.  Kamalash Singh Vs. National Insurance Company 1994(1)C.P.J.460, decided by the Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Calcutta.
3.  The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus M/s Mathura Dass Medical Store 2012(9)R.C.R.(Civil) 893,decided by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Shimla)  and
4. United India Insurance Versus Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills 2000(1)BCR 44, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India..

16. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has also reiterated his stand as taken in the reply. The counsel for the OPs has submitted that the chassis of motorcycle was in repairable condition and the complainant was adamant for the replacement of the same. He relied upon the report of the surveyor .He also stated that the complainant has never complied-with the two letters dated 20.7.2017(Ex.OP3) and 28.7.2019(Ex.OP5) written by the Insurance Company to the complainant. He further submitted that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed from all angles.

To support his submissions, the ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon:

Manager, Legal Deptt., N.A.I.Co.Ltd. Vs.Oswal Plastic Industries, First Appeal No.207 of 2015 decided on 20.2.2019, by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

17. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.
18. It is an admitted fact that the accident of the vehicle in question has taken place and that too during the period of valid  insurance. The only issue debatable is whether the chassis of the vehicle was repairable or if repaired what would be the consequences. If the chassis of the vehicle was in repairable condition the surveyor was bound to counter the claim of the complainant with reasons and shouldered the responsibility of the future consequences. The report of the surveyor is without application of mind as he has not recorded any reason to substantiate his version.  Therefore, it is concluded that the report of the surveyor is arbitrary, without applying his mind also without merits and has been recorded without anticipating the consequences.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted and the  Opposite parties  are directed to pay Rs.17,212/-  to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of payment by the complainant to Partap Automobiles, Nabha, till final payment,with another sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation, which is inclusive of costs and litigation expenses, for harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. The order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
20. The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:30.5.2019

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER