Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/568/2014

Balbir Singh Dhamrait - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Bashamboo

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/568/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	26/08/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Balbir Singh Dhamrait s/o Sh.Balwant Singh Dhamrait, R/o H.No.2171, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

Vs

 

1.   M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO 329, 1^st Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula.

 

2.   M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Limited, Claims Department Head, Claim Department, SCO 14, 4^th Floor, Urban Estate, Sector 5, Panchkula.

 

3.   M/s Swami Automotives Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Plot No.319, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

……Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

            Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant got his Volkswagen Polo car bearing Regn. No.CH-01-AS-2171 insured from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for the period from 6.3.2013 to 5.3.2014 and thereafter, got the same renewed from 8.3.2014 to 7.3.2015. During this period, the Complainant had also been taking his vehicle for service regularly with Opposite Party No.3. It has been averred that on 24.3.2014, while the car of the Complainant was parked in the driveway of his house, it caught fire, which was defused by calling the Fire Brigade (Report of Fire Brigade Annexure C-2). The Complainant informed the Police in this regard and DDR No.41 dated 24.3.2014 was registered (Annexure C-3). The Complainant also informed the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and thereafter, the car was towed to the Workshop of Opposite Party No.3 on 25.3.2014. As per the requirement of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, a request was made to the Opposite Party No.3 to prepare the estimates of the loss. The Opposite Party No.3 thereafter prepared the estimates of loss (Annexure C-5). The Complainant thereafter, wrote a letter to the Manufacturer for giving Technical Report for the cause of fire. After investigations, the Manufacturer gave the report by way of letter dated 17.4.2014 that there was no technical or manufacturing defect found in the vehicle (Annexure C-7). After completing all the formalities, a registered letter was written to the Opposite Party No.2 informing that all the formalities have been completed and required documents have been handed over to its staff on 17.4.2014. It was requested to supply the Surveyor’s Report and to pay the claim without any further delay (Annexure C-8). The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 29.9.2014 informed that the claim does not fall under the purview of policy and sought clarification of the matter within 7 days from the receipt of the letter (Annexure C-9). The Complainant thereafter, on 3.5.2014 requested for supply of Surveyor’s Report before replying to the said letter (Annexure C-10). However, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 neither supplied the Surveyor’s Report nor gave the basis on which the claim of the Complainant was stated to be not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been further averred that the Opposite Party No.3, vide letter dated 23.4.2014, demanded a sum of Rs.73,319/-, from the Complainant, on account of parking charges as well as for preparation of estimates (Annexure C-11). The Complainant thereafter was compelled to take away the vehicle from its premises and further a sum of Rs.25,000/- were wrongly charged from the Complainant to which they were not entitled. When no response was received from the side of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 a registered legal notice (Annexure C-12) was sent for supply of the Surveyor’s Report in order to file suitable reply to the letter dated 29.4.2014. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 was also called upon for the refund of the amount which it received from the Complainant towards estimation charges. However, the Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 26.08.2014 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. In these circumstances the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that immediately after receipt of the claim, the answering Opposite Parties started the spade work of the processing of the claim and appointed the Surveyor namely, B & S Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, who gave his final report dated 27.8.2014 clearly mentioning that the cause of fire was short circuiting due to fitting of non-genuine electrical accessories (Annexure OP-1/3). It has been further pleaded that the claim of the Complainant has been repudiated after due application of mind and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure OP-1/4). The Complainant has installed the unauthorized and non-genuine electrical accessories in his vehicle due to which the vehicle in question caught fire. The loss to vehicle is consequential in nature and can only be attributed to an electrical breakdown or failure, which is not covered under the purview of the Policy. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant has concealed the fact regarding negotiations with answering Opposite Party and reduction of estimation and parking charges from Rs.73,319/- to Rs.25,000/- as a goodwill gesture. It has been asserted that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of answering Opposite Party, who is just a dealership of Volkswagen Company and thus having no concern with repudiation of the claim of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and 3 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.  

 

8.      The case of the Complainant is that he got his Volkswagen Polo vehicle insured from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 from 6.3.2013 to 5.3.2014 and got the same renewed from 8.3.2014 to 7.3.2015. Opposite Parties No.3 is the Service Centre/Dealer from whom the service was being taken regularly. The aforesaid car caught fire suddenly on 24.3.2014. Annexure C-2 is the report of Fire Brigade and Annexure C-3 is the relevant DDR of the incident. According to the Complainant as the car was insured with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 so any loss to the same needs to be made good by them alone. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have denied the claim of the Complainant by stating that the cause of fire is installation of unauthorized and non-genuine electrical accessories by the Complainant in his vehicle. The loss being consequential in nature is not covered in the policy of insurance, thus no claim is payable against the same. 

 

9.      It is evident from Annexure C-8 and Annexure C-10 that the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties time and again for the Surveyor Report, but the same was not supplied to him. Evidently, there is no explanation on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as to why a person was not deputed immediately for Survey Report, even being duty bound to supply the same to the Complainant. The opinion of the Surveyor is as follows:-

 

•  

 

The front engine compartment is burnt due to fire. The “probable” cause of fire is short circuiting. At the time of survey it is observed that Few non- standard Accessories like High Voltage/intensity Xenon lightning system was installed in the car. A High pitch Horn/ Hooter was also found to be fitted in the car. The matter has been discussed with insured and brought in notice of insurer. We are submitting our independent assessment report to restrict the liability of insurer.” 

 

 

10.      It is noteworthy that as per the Complainant the car was taken for the service on 19.3.2014 only 5 days prior to the incident, but no defect was pointed out with regard to the electrical fitting by the Opposite Party No.3 at that time due to which only the claim has been repudiated. Annexure C-2 is the Fire Brigade Report, according to which the cause of the fire could not be ascertained and Annexure C-7 is the report of the Manufacturer which states that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Pertinently, the Surveyor never associated the Complainant or Fire Brigade people before giving its opinion based on probability with regard to the cause of fire. Even the surveyor report is not supported by the affidavit of the Surveyor. Therefore the same cannot be read as evidence. Since Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not take prompt action by sending the surveyor report to the Complainant, inspite of his various requests, it points out deficiency in service on their part. In the opinion of the Surveyor there is a mention of the word ‘Probable’ which shows that Surveyor is also not certain about the cause of fire. Accordingly, we find that the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant is unjustified/ unsustainable.   

 

11.      Now with regard to the payment of Rs.25,000/- by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.3 as estimation-cum-parking charges as per Annexure R-1, it is evident that the Complainant has signed Annexure R-1 including page no.2 containing terms and conditions. The amount charged by Opposite Party No.3 is clearly in accordance with terms and conditions after making substantial reduction in the said charges. Therefore, this amount cannot be ordered to be paid back to the Complainant.  

 

12.      For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the Complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed:-

[a]  To make payment of Rs.4,60,306/- as per the Surveyor Report. 

 

[b]  To make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of litigation;

 

          The liability of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall be joint and several.

 

          The Complaint fails against Opposite Party No.3.

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned in sub-para [c] above.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th March, 2015                                      

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER