BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                        Complaint No.96 of 2018.

                                        Date of institution:-12.06.2018.

                                        Date of decision        : - 16.07.2020

Sanjay Kumar son of Sh.Nagarmal, resident of village Gopalwas Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

1.IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co.Ltd.having its registered office IFFCO Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

2.IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co.Ltd.having its brach office at Dhand Road, Opp.Indra Gandhi Public School, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

3.Rakesh Kaushik son of Ram Niwas, resident of VPO Umrawat, Tehsil & District Bhiwani Broker of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co.Ltd.

                                                            …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

Before:        Sh. Nagender Singh, President.

                   Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member

Present:       Complainant in peson.

                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OPs No.1 &2.                                   Sh.Raman Tanwar, Advocate for Op No.3.

ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.HR-61B-0824 and the same was insured with opposite parties No.1 & 2 vide policy No.25878994 dated 05.03.2018  having validity from 05.03.2018 to 04.03.2019. On 10.04.2018, the complainant went to Hisar for some personal work and when reached in the year of village Devawas and Kalod, an unknown truck tried to overtake the vehicle but in the process of saving the vehicle from the truck, the complainant struck with kicker trees resulting into damaging of vehicle of the complainant. Due intimation was given to the opposite parties and the surveyor of the company inspected the site and also made his report. The complainant got the damaged vehicle repaired from Saini Automobiles, Hisar. The complainant submitted the bill amounting to Rs.63561.68 to the insurance company but opposite parties No.1 & 2 had only paid Rs.30713/- in the bank account of complainant and withhold an amount of Rs.32848.68. The complainant requested the opposite parties to release the balance amount but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their separate replies. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their reply have taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, locus standi and territorial jurisdiction etc. It has been submitted that on intimation about the accident and damage of the insured vehicle, the insurance company had deputed the surveyor, who had inspected the vehicle. The surveyor in his report has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.30,713/-. The assessed amount had already been paid to the complainant in his bank account through NEFT on 17.05.2018. The deduction of remaining amount made by the surveyor as per the liability of the company as it was strictly subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite parties. Other contentions have been controvered and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                     Opposite party No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as time barred, cause of action, locus standi, estopal, maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  The replying opposite party is broker of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the insurance policy is original and not a fake and no other liability lies with the replying opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite parties. Other contentions have been controvered and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.                     The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 and closed the evidence on 31.01.2019 whereas the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 and R2 and closed the evidence on 09.07.2019. The opposite party No.3 closed the evidence on 04.08.2019.

5.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsels for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                           It is admitted fact that the complainant had taken the insurance policy in respect of vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.HR-61B-0824 (Annexure C1).  The damage to the vehicle during the subsistence of the policy, is also not denied by the opposite parties. The plea of the complainant is that the opposite party has not paid the full amount to the tune of Rs.63561.68/- spent on the repairing of the insured vehicle despite the fact that the vehicle was fully insured and this amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.                                    On the other hand, the stand of insurance  company is that the loss assessed by the surveyor in his report Annexure R1, to the tune of Rs.30713.01/-, has already been paid to the complainant as full and final settlement, therefore, nothing is to be paid to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

6.                          As per Section 3 of the insurance policy (Value Auto Coverage), the complainant  had purchased depreciation waver cover, increased property damage liability benefit and  towing/or removal & storage of insured vehicle and paid an amount of Rs.4890/- to the insurance company.  Meaning thereby that the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is entitled to received the whole of the amount incurred on the repairing of the insured vehicle.  Though the opposite party has come with the plea that payment of Rs.30713/- to the complainant has made, as per the report of surveyor, as full and final settlement but this plea is not tenable and even contradictory to the terms and conditions of the policy as on one hand, the insurance company has received Rs.4890/-  on account of depreciation waver cover, increased property damage liability benefit and  towing/or removal & storage of insured vehicle and on the other hand when the complainant has lodged claim on account of damage of the vehicle then the insurance company has deducted an amount of Rs.32848.68/- without any reason. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance.

8.                          Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.32848/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9 % from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges etc. Order be complied within 45 days from the date of order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 16.07.2020               

                                      (Shriniwas Khundia)           (Nagender Singh)

                                                Member                         President,

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.