Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/672/2019

Sh. Ashwani Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Insurance Brokin g Private limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Munish Thakur

26 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	672/2019
Date of Institution	:	24.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	26.12.2022

 

                     

            

 

Sh.Ashwani Kumar s/o Sh.Mohinder Partap r/o House No.947-A, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh -160019.

…Complainant

Versus

1.  Maruti Insurance Booking Pvt. Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Zonal Manager.

2.  National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh Division-II, First Floor, SCO 57, Sector 26-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.  M/s CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd., (Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki), Plot No.42, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

...Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	None for complainants
	Sh.Sahil Abhi, Advocate, Proxy for Sh.Salil Sablok, Adv. for OP No.1. Sh.Madan Singh, Adv. for OP No.2. Sh.Amandeep Sharma, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Amit Bhanot, Adv. for OP No.3.

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

1.       Concisely put, the vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01-AM-8160 insured with the OP NO.2 vide insurance policy for the period from 07.04.2019 to 06.04.2020 (Annexure C-1) suffered damages while the complainant in order to avoid his car being struck against the speeding car, moved his car towards right side of the road a little bit.  The vehicle was towed to OP No.3 by incurring a sum of Rs.1930/- as towing charges and he gave all the necessary documents including the insurance policy for effecting the repairs on the vehicle.  When the complainant took the trial of the vehicle, he found that some loud noise emanating from the bottom of the vehicle and the same was brought to the notice of the concerned persons and on checking, it was found that the axle tube of the vehicle was also damaged in the accident and accordingly they replaced the same and the vehicle was delivered on 21.06.2019 after a period of 14 days.  However, he was surprised when OP No.3 demanded a sum of Rs.21,666/- towards repairs and replacement of axle tube etc. despite the fact that the same was covered under the insurance policy. He was informed by OP No.3 that out of the aforesaid amount, he has to pay Rs.8182/- towards depreciated value of the spare parts and Rs.13,484/- towards replacement of the axle tube and he paid the same vide Annexures C-3 and C-4.  It has further been averred that the surveyor deputed by the insurance company never contacted him.  Subsequently, he raised the demand for the refund of Rs.13,984/- and Rs.1930/- paid as towing charges, which has not been refunded to him despite his repeated requests. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2.     In its written statement, OP No.1 has stated that the insurance policy for the vehicle has been sourced through it qua facilitator of insurance. It has been denied that they are liable to pay for all expenses on account of damage to the vehicle or refund the amount as alleged in the complaint. Denying other allegations, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.    
3.     In its written statement, OP No.2 has stated that on receipt of the information regarding the damage to the vehicle, Er.Pardeep Goswami, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed for assessment of the loss who after inspection assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,419/- and the same was paid to the repairer i.e. OP No.3 on 02.08.2019. It has been stated that the claim of the complainant has already paid as requested by OP No.3 as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such there is no deficiency in service on its part. It has been stated that neither the complainant nor OP No.3 had intimated regarding the damaged part i.e. rear axle tube and the same was got replaced without informing them and as such they are not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. Denying other allegations, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.    
4.     In its written statement, OP No.3 has stated that when the accidental vehicle was brought to its premises, the mileage was more than 47000 km and the rear axle was changed only after the consent of the complainant and not by it on its own.  It has further bene stated that had the axle been damaged in the accident then other surrounding parts around the same could also have had some impact or damage. The remaining allegations have been denied being wrong. In the last, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua it has been made.
5.     The complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written replies of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
6.     Parties led evidence in support of their contention.
7.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.
8.     The perusal of the documentary evidence on record shows that the vehicle in question suffered damages on 08.06.2019 during the existence of the insurance policy and the same was towed to OP No.3 for effecting repairs. There is also no doubt that the axle of the vehicle in question was replaced by OP No.3 upon which the complainant had incurred a sum of Rs.13,484/- as is evident from Annexure C-4 attached with the complaint.  In our considered view, the axle tube of the vehicle was changed because there was need to change it as the vehicle was clearly showing lack of smooth functioning and was not running like mechanically fully fit vehicle.   Since the need to change the axle tube of the vehicle was felt, the same was changed by the authorized agency of the vehicle and the presumption of OP No.3 that if the axle tube of the vehicle had been damaged nearby parts would also have damaged is not acceptable. Therefore, we are of the considered view that OP No.2-Insurance Company should take the full responsibility as the insurer of the vehicle and to repay back the replacement costs of the axle tube of the vehicle to the complainant. Thus, OP No.2 is proved to have committed deficiency in service to this extent only.
9.     As regards, the claim of the complainant regarding refund of towing charges to the tune of Rs.1935/- is concerned, it is established from summary assessment sheet (Annexure R-6), the Insurance Company has already allowed a sum of Rs.1250/- towards the towing charges and the complainant has already received Rs.14,419/- from the Insurance Company which also includes the towing charges.
10.     In view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed qua OP No.2 with a direction to refund a sum of Rs.13,484/- towards the repair charges of the axle tube of the vehicle in question to the complainant with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses. The above said order shall be complied with by OP No.2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, apart from the above awarded amount.
11.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 26/12/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER