DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/316.

Date of Institution   : 25.04.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 18.07.2022.

Mr. Harjinder Singh Chahal son of Sh. Bela Singh resident of H.No. C-2353, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.  

                …Complainant Versus

1.Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer through its Branch Office at SCO 9, Burj Punjab, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager. 

2.Novelty Hyundai, 57, Court Road, Amritsar through its Managing Director/Principle Officer.  

                 …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (as amended upto date) 

 

Present: Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. R.P. Singh Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Mohan Arora Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended upto date against Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got insurance for vehicle Hyundai I10 Magna bearing registration No. PB 02 CL 5577 from the opposite party No. 1 covering the risk period from 18.9.2017 to 17.9.2018. It is further alleged that unfortunately on 7.3.2018 the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre of the Hyundai Vehicles i.e. opposite party No. 2 and the complainant immediately intimated the opposite party No. 1 and they deputed their surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 charged Rs. 24,386/- from the complainant without issuing any proper bill which is against the spirit of insurance cover note as no policy conditions were conveyed to the complainant by the opposite parties. The cover note issued to the complainant on Zero Depreciation basis and premium has been charged according to the same. Despite repeated requests of the complainant opposite parties not making the payment in full of the genuine claim of the complainant and deliberately withheld the vehicle of the complainant for a long period, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To pay the amount of Rs. 24,386/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization. 

ii)To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation alongwith litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the ground of complainant not come with clean hands. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 has already paid admissible amount to the repairer on behalf of complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-02/CL-5577 was insured by the answering opposite party vide Private Car Package Policy No. 2011-200503-17-8000138-00-000 for the period from 18.9.2017 to 17.9.2018 subject to the terms and conditions. It is further alleged that the complainant had registered in all three claims under the policy as under;-

Claim Number        Loss Date Paid Amount INR

200503201117110067501     25.11.2017 5,394/-

200503201117110127001     7.3.2018 10,611/-

200503201118110016801      28.4.2018       3,906/-

The above history shows that complainant had obtained three claims in span of just 5 months. It is further alleged that on 9.3.2018 the opposite party received information on behalf of complainant to the effect his vehicle met with an accident on 7.3.2018 describe cause of loss/damage/accident and on the perusal of cause of loss stated by the complainant it was smelled that complainant was claiming multiple damages all round to his vehicle caused by 3 different vehicles at a time. It is further alleged that on receipt of information the opposite party deputed Mr. Manoj Kumar an independent IRDAI licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the damaged vehicle and submit his report on exact nature and cause of accident and further extent of liability of insurer therefor. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor after careful examination of damaged vehicle in the light of manner of accident found that damages were not co-relating with the cause and nature of loss and thus allowed only those damages which were appearing co-relating and denied those were not co-relating and accordingly the opposite party processed and settled complainant's claim for an amount of INR 10,611/- and the same amount is paid to the repairer on behalf of complainant. As such, the claim of complainant being settled in accordance with independent Surveyor's report and the complainant is not entitled to any relief and further amount from the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In reply the opposite party No. 2 has raised preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, no cause of action etc. On merits, it is submitted that as per instructions, car of the complainant was got repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and after repair of car they issued invoice of repair to the tune of Rs. 34,997/- and out of this amount, the opposite party No. 1 has made payment of Rs. 10,611/- and another amount of Rs. 24,386/- was received by them from the complainant and the car was handover to the complainant. It is denied that the opposite party No. 2 has received the amount of Rs. 24,386/- without issuance of proper bill. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint against opposite party No. 2.

5. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the cover note Ex.C-2, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. 

6. In order to rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jitendera Jain Ex.O.P1, copy of policy Ex.O.P2, copy of the terms and conditions (6 pages) Ex.O.P3, copy of the claim form Ex.O.P4, copy of the survey report Ex.O.P5, copy of survey estimate report Ex.O.P6, copy of the surveyor affidavit Ex.O.P7, copy of customer invoice Ex.O.P8 and closed the evidence. 

7. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kakaria Ex.O.P2/1, copy of resolution Ex.O.P2/2, copy of power of attorney Ex.O.P2/3 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by the opposite party No. 1.

9. It is not disputed between the parties that the above said vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party No. 1  vide Private Car Package Policy No. 2011-200503-17-8000138-00-000 which was valid from 18.9.2017 to 17.9.2018 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. Ex.C-2 & Ex.O.P1/2. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that unfortunately on 7.3.2018 the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre of the Hyundai Vehicles i.e. opposite party No. 2 and the complainant immediately intimated the opposite party No. 1 and they deputed their surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 2 charged Rs. 24,386/- from the complainant without issuing any proper bill which is against the spirit of insurance cover note as no policy conditions were conveyed to the complainant by the opposite parties. 

10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that the opposite party No. 1 has already paid admissible amount to the repairer on behalf of complainant. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 further argued that on 9.3.2018 the opposite party received information on behalf of complainant to the effect his vehicle met with an accident on 7.3.2018 but on the perusal of cause of loss as stated by the complainant it was smelled that complainant was claiming multiple damages all round to his vehicle and the opposite party deputed Mr. Manoj Kumar an independent IRDAI licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the damaged vehicle and submit his report on exact nature and cause of accident. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 also argued that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor after careful examination of damaged vehicle in the light of manner of accident found that damages were not co-relating with the cause and nature of loss and thus allowed only those damages which were appearing co-relating and denied those were not co-relating and accordingly the opposite party processed and settled complainant's claim for an amount of INR 10,611/- and the same was paid to the repairer on behalf of complainant. 

11. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that that as per instructions of the complainant the Car of the complainant was got repaired to the satisfaction and after repair of Car they issued invoice of repair to the tune of Rs. 34,997/- and out of this amount, the opposite party No. 1 has made payment of Rs. 10,611/- and another amount of Rs. 24,386/- was received by them from the complainant and the car was handover to the complainant. 

12. In order to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record affidavit of Manoj Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor i.e. Ex.O.P1/7 vide which the above said Surveyor stated that he is working as surveyor and loss assessor and he is qualified surveyor and loss assessor and having experience of 18 years in this field. He further submitted in his affidavit that he inspected the insured vehicle and given his final survey report dated 28.3.2018 which is Ex.O.P1/5. We have perused the Motor Survey Report Ex.O.P1/5 submitted by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, vide which the Surveyor  mentioned that;-

“After carefully inspection I found the vehicle multiple damage and cause of an accident Explained by the Insured in Claim Form not corroborating damages, Repairer repaired the vehicle with the consent of Insured from all side but that I allowed the Right Side Qtr Pannel, R/S Rear Door, Left Side Front Bumper, Left Side Fende and Left Side Head Light, But Repairer repaired all side with customer consent and not discussed with me. However, I am submitting my Final Survey Report as allowed the labour of parts discussed with repairer”.

Moreover, in the written version the opposite party No. 2 alleged that as per the instructions Car of the complainant was got repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and after repair of Car they issued invoice of repair to the tune of Rs. 34,997/-. So, it is cleared that the Car of the  complainant got repaired by the opposite party No. 2 as per the instructions of the complainant not as per actual damage of vehicle suffered due to accident. Further, the complainant has failed to place on record any detailed repair bill. 

13. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that they have  paid the claim as per the report given by the Surveyor. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 also argued that the surveyor report is an important document which cannot be ignored. Ld counsel for the opposite party No. 1 also produced the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled Mohan Lal Meean Versus United India Insurance Company decided on 27.1.2021 in which Hon'ble National Commission has given weightage to the surveyor report. On the other hand the complainant has failed to rebut the report of Surveyor.

14. In view of the above discussion and detailed facts of the present complaint, the complainant is failed to prove his case and the complainant has already received the claim amount from the opposite party No. 1, therefore the present complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       18th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member