| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.107 of 28.3.2017 Decided on: 22.2.2018 Viney Gupta S/o Late Sh.Jagdish Singh, aged 37 years resident of 22B, Raja Avenue, Near 21 No.Phatak, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Iffco Tokio Gen. Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager,Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
- Iffco Tokio Gen Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.3,Sector 29 , Gurgaon 122001
- Maruti Insurance broking private Limited 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 through its agency manager, Hira Automobiles, Patiala.
- Mr. Resham Singh, Surveyor, Iffco Tokio Insurance Company Limited, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Viney Gupta, complainant in person. Sh.Amit Gupta,Adv.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 Sh.Rakesh Kumar Garg,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.3 Opposite party No.4, ex-parte ORDER SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT Sh.Viney Gupta, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:- - To repair the windshield of the car in question;
- To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
- To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses
- To pay Rs.2 lacs for putting the life of the complainant on risk and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got his Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.PB-13AJ-7476 insured from OPs Nos.1 and 2 through Op No.3 vide policy No.97858562having cover note No.89221625 dated 28th April 2016, for the period from 7th May 2016 to 6th May 2017. It was assured to the complainant that in case of any damage to car, it would be repaired by paying a file processing fee of INR 1000/-only without demanding any additional charges as the type of policy was package policy. It is stated that on 18th June 2016, due to heavy rain and thunderstorms on the road, the car met with an accident resulting into damage to front windshield, tail lights and rear bumper of the car. The complainant visited Maruti workshop at focal point Patiala where he was made to sign five un-filled forms with the assurance that his car would be repaired after paying file charges of INR of Rs.1000/-only. However, on the next day, he received a call from the service advisor of Maruti Workshop for lodging two separate claims i.e. one for windshield and another for repair of bumper and rear portion of car without giving any satisfactory reason. In the evening the complainant visited the workshop and asked the service adviser for giving requirement of lodging two separate claims in writing but the service engineer refused to do so after consulting his seniors. On contacting the surveyor the adviser told that his claim for windshield would not be passed. It is stated that windshield of car was not repaired and only half of repair was done but Maruti Workshop due to refusal by the insurance company to pass the claim in this regard. He lodged separate complaints with Maruti insurance as well as with Iffco Tokio but to no effect. Even the grievance officer of Iffco Tokio had refused to entertain the complaint with the remarks that “As per surveyor’s observation, damages of windshield were not correlated with the cause of loss hence not considered by surveyor:”. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company for refusing the genuine claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint. - On being put to notice, OPs No1 to 3 appeared and filed their separate written version while OP no.4despite service failed to put its appearance and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte
- In the written version filed by OPs No1 and 2, it is admitted that the complainant has taken one insurance policy bearing No.97858562 for the period from 7.5.2016 to 7.5.2017 pertaining to vehicle No.PB-13AJ-7426. It is also admitted that the complainant lodged one claim with regard to the accident of the car in question. Sh. Resham Singh, surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, who submitted his report dated 20.6.2016 having recommended for the settlement of the case to the tune of Rs.16490/-. The said amount was duly paid to the garage. The claim of windshield did not correlate with the accident/loss in question and was rightly rejected by the surveyor/insurance company. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint
In the written version filed by OP no.3, it is admitted that it had issued the insurance policy to the complainant after taking the premium. The terms and conditions of the policy have already been settled and approved by the insurance company. It is also admitted that the complainant brought the accidental vehicle to its workshop for its repair and the mechanic of OP no. after inspecting the vehicle prepared the estimate. The surveyorof the insurance company declined the whole claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The OP no. was having no concern with the same. The complainant did not pay the cost of repairing the wind shield as such the same could not be repaired. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.3. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for OPs No.1 and hastendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Rajeev Ranjan , Ex.OPC affidavit ofSh. Resham Singh, surveyor and loss assessor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence. Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Operation Head,Hira Automobile Ltd. i.e. OP no.3 has tendered .OP7 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for OPs No.1 and has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Rajeev Ranjan , Ex.OPC affidavit ofSh. Resham Singh, surveyor and loss assessor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence. Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Operation Head,Hira Automobile Ltd. i.e. OP no.3 has tendered .OP7 and closed the evidence. We have heard the complainant, the ld.counsel for OPs No.1to3 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. As per the complainant his duly insured car met with an accident on 18.6.2016 and due to said accident the front windshield, tail lights and rear bumper of the car in question were damaged. For indemnification of the loss suffered by him, he lodged the claim with the insurance company. On the advice of the insurance company, he took his car for repair to the Maruti Workshop, at Patiala. But it repaired only tail lights and rear bumper and refused to replace the windshield. On the other hand, the plea of OPs No.1&2 is that the amount of Rs.16490/- had been paid as full and final settlement of the claim to the Maruti Workshop. It is further pleaded that since the surveyor has observed that the claim with regard to the windshield of the car in question did not correlate with the accident therefore, the same had rightly been rejected. The plea of OP no.3 is that it has no concern regarding the approval and passing of the insurance claim .Since the complainant and the insurance company did not pay the cost of the wind shield, therefore, the same could not be repaired and no deficiency in service can be attributed on its part. From the Motor Final Survey report, Ex.OP5, it is evident that the car in question met with an accident on 18.6.2016 and the windshield, one side back light and bumper of the car in question were damaged. Since the windshield of the car in question was damaged on the date of accident i.e. 18.6.2016, therefore, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him with regard to the damage of the wind shield of the car in question.The refusal of the insurance company to not to indemnify the complainant for the replacement of the wind shield of the car in question amounted to deficiency in service. The insurance company i.e. OPs No.1&2 are thus not only liable to indemnify the complainant for the replacement of the damaged windshield of the car in question but are also liable to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. Since neither any specific allegations have been leveled nor proved against OPs No.3&4 therefore, the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed. - In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OPs No.3&4 and allow the same against OPs No.1&2 . OPs No.1&2 are directed in the following manager
- To indemnify the complainant for the replacement of the damaged windshield with the new one;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.
The OPs No.1&2 are further directed to comply the aforesaid order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the said order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. ANNOUNCED DATED: 22.2.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
