DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 899/2016
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
YUDHBIR SINGH,
S/o SH. JAIPAL SINGH,
R/o H.NO. 252, GALI No.-5, PATEL NAGAR,
BAHADUR GARH, JHAJJAR,
HARYANA-124507 … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENE. INS. Co. LTD.,
10th FLOOR, AGGARWAL CYBER PLAZA-I,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
2. BODYSHOP,
(A UNIT OF DIVINE AUTOTECH PVT. LTD.),
87/3, NEAR VASUNDHRA VATIKA,
VILL.-GHEWRA, MUNDAKA, DELHI-81. … OPPOSITE PARTY (ies)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 06.09.2016
Date of decision: 13.03.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging
CC No.899/2016 Page 1 of 11
that the complainant purchased a Renault KWID Car bearing registration no. HR-13-L-7084 on 03.03.2016 from Sikka Automobiles, Mayapuri, Delhi and on the same day, the complainant was introduced by the seller of the car to OP-1 i.e. insurance company who then induced the complainant to take insurance policy from them and ensured that the car will be insured against each and every kind of damaged even third party damage. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was convinced about conditions told by OP-1’s agent and applied for the insurance cover and upon asking terms & conditions of the policy, it was told that the same will be dispatched to the correspondence address alongwith the copy of the policy, the agent of OP-1 did not provide any other document except the cover note of the policy to the complainant and the cover note of the policy for a period from 03.03.2016 till 02.03.2017 bearing policy no.2011-200102-15-1011 427-00-000. On 25.03.2016, when the complainant noticed in the morning at around 10:00 a.m. near primary school in Madangir, New Delhi where it was parked in the evening of 24.03.2016, the insured vehicle was badly damaged due to some accident and the same was reported to the police on the same day and no formal written complaint was neither demanded nor given to the police officials with respect to the above said damage, as the procedure was not known to the complainant. Thereafter, the vehicle was
CC No.899/2016 Page 2 of 11
towed away to the workshop of OP-2 on 25.03.2016, being an agency for repairs of Renault vehicles who assured the complainant that they will inform the insurance company about the damage caused to the insured vehicle on behalf of the complainant at the earliest and upon enquiry on the next day, it was told by OP-2 that OP-1 has been intimated about the loss and the surveyor will be visiting in a day or two for assessing the estimate loss/damage caused to the vehicle. The complainant further alleged that OP-2 demanded a police report from the complainant and told that it is necessary for passing the claim of the complainant and upon which, the complainant again went to the police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi for taking the copy of the complaint regarding the damage caused to the insured vehicle. On 26.03.2016, it was found by the complainant that the complaint was not registered by the police officials due to some inadvertence and a DD entry was recorded by the police official vide DD entry no. 37B dated 26.03.2016 regarding the incident caused and the above said police report was given to OP-2 who then assured that the same will be handed over to the surveyor appointed by OP-1 and it was also told that OP-1 has already been informed by OP-2 and the surveyor will visit on 28.03.2016 for inspection of the vehicle and to prepare its report. The complainant further alleged that as told by OP-2, the vehicle was surveyed on 28.03.2016 by the surveyor appointed by
CC No.899/2016 Page 3 of 11
OP-1 who took all the papers alongwith him and told to wait for his report but no communication was made by OP-1, however, OP-2 started saying that the report of surveyor is awaited and the same will be intimated to the complainant as soon as it comes to the knowledge of OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the complainant received the repudiation of claim letter dated 12.04.2016 from OP-1 on various grounds including one main ground, which says that “the vehicle was alleged to have been met with accident between 25.03.2016 whereas, intimation thereof was given to the call center on 01.04.2016 i.e. as much as after a delay of almost seven days which is in violation of condition no.1 of the agreement”, however, the same is denied for the reason that if OP-1 was intimated on 01.04.2016 then the surveyor of OP-1 would have no opportunity to inspect the vehicle on 28.03.2016 as told by OP-2 to the complainant. The complainant further stated that the repudiation letter further provides that the location of mobile number of the complainant showed that the complainant was in Haryana, whereas, in the claim application, the complainant said that he was at Madangir, Delhi and held that the complainant provides the false information and further submitted that the during Holi festival and the complainant was not carrying his mobile phone with him and left at his home in Haryana, even for the sake of arguments, if presumed to be correct, then also place of accident had nothing to do with the legitimate claim of the
CC No.899/2016 Page 4 of 11
complainant, under a circumstance, wherein the vehicle is insured against damage of any kind. The complainant further alleged that the repudiation letter further provided that the police had lodged the complaint of the complainant under non cognizable offence category and police had taken no action to check the authenticity of the reported circumstances and the duty of the complainant was to inform the police officer regarding damage caused to the vehicle and the complainant has no concern as to whether it is registered under non cognizable category or not and the complainant did not know about these technicalities. The complainant further alleged that it has been stated in the repudiation letter that the surveyor submitted a report that the subject claim do not coincide with the cause and nature of loss as mentioned by the complainant, however, OP-1 did not explain how it was not coincide nor OP provided the copy of survey report so that the complainant can assist the surveyor and can give sufficient explanation. Thereafter, the complainant got the damaged vehicle repaired from Aseem Auto Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak and New Lakshmi Motor Works, Rohtak and incurred a total expenses of more than Rs.60,000/- and on the receipt of the said repudiation letter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.04.2016 to OP-1 and OP-1 declined to consider those explanations and replied vide letter dated 11.05.2016 and maintained the claim of repudiation. The complainant further alleged that the complainant also wrote many mails to OP asking
CC No.899/2016 Page 5 of 11
him to provide the copy of policy terms & conditions as well as the copy of survey report but till date, OP-1 deliberately avoided to provide the same to the complainant for the reasons best known to him and the complainant has purchased the insured vehicle for his communication (as public transport was not convenient due to till health) between his accommodation at Bahadurgarh to Gurgaon (Gurugram) a distance of around 42 KMs as the complainant work for gains in Maruti at Gurgaon. The complainant further alleged that the complainant need to spend Rs.200/- daily for his communication from his home to his workplace, for the period, when the vehicle was lying in the workshop awaiting reply from the insurance company as well as till it was actually repaired i.e. for a period of around three months and due to the said act of OPs the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- in favour of the complainant in lieu of the expenses incurred by the complainant for repairs of the insured vehicle in question and quash the repudiation letter dated 12.04.2016 issued by OP-1 & OP-2 as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental harassment, agony and financial loss and has also sought Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
CC No.899/2016 Page 6 of 11
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed reply. OP-1 in its reply submitted that interest of the complainant in vehicle bearing engine no.E031626 and chassis no. MEEBBA004G2336709 was insured by OP vide Private Car Package policy no.2011-20010 2-15-1011427-00-000 for the period from 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2017 subject to the terms and conditions incorporated and to the extent of limits mentioned in the said policy. On 01.04.2016, OP received an information from and on behalf of the complainant to the effect that on 25.03.2016 the complainant parked his vehicle near Primary School, Madangir, Delhi and noticed that all glass are broken and vehicle was damaged. OP-1 further submitted that immediately OP deputed duly licensed surveyor Mr. Anil Kumar to ascertain exact cause and extent of loss and the surveyor has visited the workshop and has inspected the vehicle and had observed some doubts qua the description of cause of nature of loss mentioned in the claim form and OP issued a request letter dated 02.04.2016 and asked for the information like copy of FIR, call records/statement of the complainant on the date of accident i.e. 25.03.2016 and surveyor submitted his final survey report wherein he made specific remarks as under: “As per the claim form and version of insured, the vehicle was parked at Madangir, Delhi on next morning the vehicle was found badly damaged by unknown person, after that the complainant himself drove the vehicle to workshop but as per the facts and information gathered the
CC No.899/2016 Page 7 of 11
complainant was not present in Delhi on the date of the incident and the insured is mis-representing the facts and thus recommended for the claim repudiation. OP-1 further submitted that the licensed surveyor Mr. Anil Kumar assessed the loss for the damage of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.88,430/-, however, as per the own version of the complainant, he paid Rs.60,000/- towards the repair of the vehicle and the bill amounting to Rs.33,450/- cannot be taken into consideration and as per request letter, the complainant has provided the call details/statement of his mobile and upon going through the call statement on date of incident i.e. 25.03.2016, it reveals that the complainant was in Haryana and his mobile was on roaming mode and thus not present in Delhi at the place of incident as mentioned in the claim form and the call details provided by the complainant contradicts with the representation given by the complainant in claim form.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP-1.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of his driving license, copy of R.C., Copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Proposal and Covernote, copy of Customer Interaction Check Sheet, copy of complaint vide DD No.37B dated 26.03.2016 lodged by the complainant, copy of Repudiation Letter dated 12.04.2016, copy of receipt no.2607 dated 24.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- issued by Renault, Delhi North, copy of cash
CC No.899/2016 Page 8 of 11
dated 07.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.33,450/- issued by New Lakshmi Motor Works, Delhi Road, Sampla (Rohtak), Haryana, copy of invoice no.SERINVCLROJA17000370 dated 14.05.2016 issued by Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak, Haryana, copy of invoice dated 16.04.2016 issued by Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak, Haryana, copy of legal notice dated 24.04.2016 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OPs by Regd. Post and copy of reply dated 11.05.2016 sent by OP-1 to the Counsel for the complainant.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Dinesh Jhalani, Legal Manager of OP-1 filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OP-1. OP-1 has also filed copy of Certificate of Insurance cum policy schedule issued by OP-1, copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form Private Car/Two Wheeler issued by OP-1, copy of letter dated 04.04.2016 written by the complainant to OP-1, copy of request letter dated 02.04.2016 sent by OP-1 to the complainant, copy of Private & Confidential, copy of Motor Repair Assessment Cum Processing Sheet issued by OP-1 and copy of Vodafone bill and details. OP-1 has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the parties in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP-1. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and cannot be disbelieved.
8. Referring to the facts of the present case, we are of opinion that OP-1 has failed to prove the defence taken. OP-1 has not placed on
CC No.899/2016 Page 9 of 11
record any document to show that the vehicle was in Haryana and not in Delhi on the date of alleged accident/loss and damage to the vehicle. OP-1 has failed to prove any document to show that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The surveyor appointed the OP-1 as per surveyor report dated 02.04.2016 which has been placed on record by OP-1 shows damages to the vehicle to the extent of Rs.88,430/- and the surveyor in its report has stated that the said amount is to be released but OP-1 failed to release the said amount to the complainant and instead repudiated the claim of the complainant.
9. Accordingly in the circumstances of the case OP-1 ought not to have repudiated the claim of the complainant and ought to have passed the claim at least on the basis of surveyor report and as claimed by the complainant. Accordingly, we hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service.
10. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.60,000/- being the amount of loss/damage to the vehicle as approved by the surveyor.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
CC No.899/2016 Page 10 of 11
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 13th day of March, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.899/2016 Page 11 of 11
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
