Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/597/2018

Surekha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Goyal Adv.

02 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	597/2018
Date of Institution	:	26.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	02.05.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Surekha Rani w/o Sh.Navtej Kumar r/o H.No.385/2A, Janta Nagar, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2^nd Residential Address at :- H.No.8477, Old Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd., Suite No.2, First Floor, SCO 174-175, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-    

Sh.Deepak Goyal, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Adv. for the OP.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-59-A-2846 with the OP vide insurance Policy (Annexure C-1) for the period from 11.09.2017 to 10.09.2018. The said vehicle being driven by his son met with an accident on 25.06.2018 at about 5.00 P.M. The vehicle was alleged to be damaged from front and back side as the vehicle moving in front of the car suddenly applied the brakes and the car in question hit the said vehicle inspite of applying sudden brakes by his son and the rear car moving behind the car of the complainant hit the car from the backside.  According to the complainant, the loss to the car was occurred from both sides i.e. front and back resulting damage to front bumper, bonnet, front security rod, wind screen, fenders, grill, rear bumper, trunk etc. apart from the internal damage.  It has further been averred that she lodged the claim and the surveyor was appointed by the OP in order to assess the loss and she supplied the photocopies of the documents after showing its original to him and signed various blank forms to get the claim.  It has further been averred that after obtaining all the documents and signed forms, the surveyor started threatening that the claim was to be rejected by the OP as the vehicle was earlier subjected to repairs and, therefore, she should not further proceed with the insurance claim and get her claim cancelled at her own request. According to the complainant, she requested the service center to do the necessary repairs to make the vehicle good enough for driving it on road and not to repair the dents/cracks/scratches and other parts without which the vehicle could be plied on the road as the bill amount will go much higher as the insurance claim was to be repudiated by the Surveyor.  It has further been averred that the service center carried out only necessary repairs and raised the bill (Annexure C-3). However, till today the front wind screen, front shockers, rear bumper fenders, fog lamps, clutch, trunk, front security rod etc. needs replacement/repairs due to the loss caused in the accident.  It has further been averred that the OP in a very smart manner sent request letter dated 09.07.2018 followed by two reminders demanding all the papers, signed forms and other documents from her towards loss of the vehicle inspite of the fact that all the documents and signed forms were already supplied to it.  Finally, she has filed the complaint before the Forum which was disposed of vide order dated 30.08.2018 directing the OP to decide the claim within 30 days. However, after the passing of the order, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 18.09.2018 on the ground that the damages claimed do not coincide with the cause and nature of loss as mentioned by her and the damages to the vehicle were older than the date of loss mentioned in the claim. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that on receipt of the information on 01.07.2018 regarding the accident of the vehicle, they deputed the Claim Assessor to inspect the damaged vehicle and ascertain the extent of liability of the insurer thereof who inspected the vehicle and prepared the assessment of Rs.16,836/-. However, he has specifically mentioned in his report under the head “special remark” that: the assessment is done for reference purpose only, however, the damages are not payable.  It has further been pleaded that the OP had written repeated letters to the complainant to submit the required documents but she failed to submit the required documents and, therefore, on 20.08.2018 the OP issued a closer letter.  It has further been pleaded that the OP vide letter dated 18.09.2018 repudiated the claim as the damages under subject claim did not coincide with the cause and nature of loss mentioned in the claim form and the damages were older than the date of loss mentioned and the complainant failed to submit the mandatory documents. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating her own.
4.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The main contention of the OP-Company is that the damages under the claim do not coincide with the cause and the nature of loss mentioned in the claim form and the damages were older than the date of loss mentioned therein.  However, we do not find any substance in this submission of the OP in the absence of any reliable and convincing evidence in this regard.  Thus, the rejection of the claim by the OP vide its repudiation letter dated 18.09.2018 on the grounds mentioned therein is held to be unjustified and illegal.
6.         As regards, another plea of the OP regarding non-submission of the mandatory documents by the complainant is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated in the complaint as well as rejoinder to the written statement that she had already supplied the documents to the Claim Assessor/Surveyor as asked for and the original thereof were also shown to him. Hence, this submission of the OP is also rejected accordingly.
7.         The Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the Invoices dated 29.06.2018 and 06.07.2018 issued by M/s Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd., Mohali (an authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealers) to contend that the complainant had incurred a sum of Rs.16,999/- and Rs.21,696/- respectively on the repairs of the damaged vehicle in question.  
8.         Needless to say that the Claim Assessor deputed by the OP, after assessment of the damages and applying the due depreciation and compulsory excess as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy assessed the loss to the damaged vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.16,836/- and submitted its assessment report dated 09.07.2018 (Annexure OP-2) to the Insurance Company.  In this view of the matter, the complainant is held entitled to Rs.16,836/- as assessed by the Claim Assessor and not the amount as claimed in the complaint.  The OP has, thus, committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant in toto, instead of releasing the amount of Rs.16,836/- as assessed by the Claim Assessor. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is  directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.16,836/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its repudiation i.e. 18.09.2018 till its actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused to the complainant;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02/05/2019

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER