District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 369/2020
Date of Institution:12.10.2020.
Date of Order:01.03.2023.
Shubham Jagar aged 22 years S/o Dr. Imritjeet Singh Chaudhary, r/o House No. F-12, Sector-10, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office: First floor, Hosto Centre , No. 43, Millers Road,Vasanth nagar, Bangalore Pin code –
560052.
2. The Branch Manager, M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd floor, SCO 33, Sector-16A, Faridabad.
3. M/s. Pace Honda (A Unit of Vardhman Trucking Pvt. Ltd.) Ground floor, Mathura road, Opposite Omaxe City, Bharat Colony, Ramnagar, Palwal – 121102.
…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Jasmeet Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 11.07.2022.
Opposite party No.3exparte vide order dated 22.12.2021.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was registered owner of Honda City car having registration NO. HR-29AG-0598 which was insured from the opposite parties vide its Zero Depreciation Comprehensive Insurance Policy No. S8779563 valid from 03.01.2019 to 02.01.2020 for an amount of Rs.3,35,000/- as insured declared value by making the payment of insurance premium of Rs.16,433/-. On 16.4.2019, the father of the complainant alongwith the sister of the complainant were going to Safai Medical College, UP and when they reached near Toll Tax, unfortunately the father of the complainant lost control of the Honda City car mentioned above and rammed into the toll booth, resulting which the above mentioned Honda City car got damaged in the above mentioned accident. The complainant intimated the opposite parties regarding the accident and the damage caused to the insured vehicle and accordingly filed the own damage claim with the opposite party. After the intimation of the above accident to the opposite party, the insured car was towed and taken to Pace Honda, Bharat Colony, Opposite Omaxe City, Delhi Mathura Road, Palwal, the authorized service station of the Honda cars for repairs. The complainant approached the opposite parties for the cash less repairs of the damaged Honda City car mentioned above but the opposite party stated the complainant that the opposite parties were not having a cashless tie up for Honda cars,, therefore, the complainant had to first
pay for the expenses towards the repairs and thereafter the opposite party would reimburse the amount to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant spent an amount of Rs.3,79,586/- towards the cost of repairs vide invoice NO. SR29119-524 dated 01.06.2019 and further spent an amount of Rs.7,918/- vide invoice NO. SR29119-1014 dated 02.08.2019 towards the towing charges. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.3,91,504/- for the repair of the damaged Honda City car and was accordingly issued receipt No. 7299 and receipt No. 7300 both dated 02.08.2019, acknowledging the receipt of the payment of Rs.7,918/- and Rs.3,79,586/-, both issued by opposite party No.3. After the payment of Rs.3,91,504/-, the complainant approached the opposite party insurer for the disbursement/release of Rs.3,91,504/-, the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the Honda City Car mentioned above. It was submitted that the complainant and the opposite party insurer by virtue of insurance policy bearing No. S8779563 valid from 03.01.2019 to 02.01.2020 were into a contractual relationship with each other, whereby the opposite party insurer was bound to indemnify the complainant for the own damage claim of the insured vehicle and accordingly submitted the relevant documents pertaining to the repair of the damaged Honda City Car, mentioned above, to the opposite party insurer and requested the opposite party insurer to release the payment of Rs.3,91,504/- to the complainant on account of the expenditure incurred upon the repairs of the damaged insured Honda City Car. To utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite party insurer released a payment of Rs.1,80,000/- on 22.07.2019 in the savings bank account of the complainant having account No. 36444553023 being maintained in State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Sector-12, Faridabad. The complainant after receiving the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- approached the opposite party insurer to inquire as to why a deficient amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was released instead of Rs.3,91,504/-, to which the opposite party insurer informed the
complainant that the opposite party insurer cannot release any amount more than the IDV of the insured vehicle, which in the present was Rs.3,35,000/-. The complainant further approached the opposite party insurer and stated them that still the amount released to the complainant was deficient as the IDV value of the damaged Honda City car as per the insurance policy was Rs.3,35,000/- and the opposite party released only an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and further brought to the knowledge of the opposite party insurer that an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was still short and was required to be released to the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make the payment of Rs.1,55,000/- @ 18% per annum from the date of damage of the insured vehicle in accident i.e. 16.4.2019 till its actual realization..
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that at the very threshold of the allegations contained the complaint, the insurance company had already paid the payable & admissible claim amount as Rs.1,80,000/-, in view of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy & survey report as well as in pursuant of written consent & discharge voucher as to full & final satisfaction by complainant, under NEFT vide dated 22.07,2019 to the bank account of the complainant maintained in State Bank of India, Sector-12, Faridabad. The complainant neither any cause of action nor locus standi in lodging of the present complaint before this Forum, reason being, as a matter of record, the complainant had intimated the insurance company with regards to damage of car
No. HR-29AG-0598 so occurred on 16.04.2019 at 7.30a.m. for which he had submitted claim form by annexing relied upon documents including repair estimate & bills etc. Thereafter, matter was got investigated & survey was conducted too. Finally, the insurance company had already paid the payable & admissible claim amount as Rs.1,80,000/-, in view of terms & conditions of the insurance policy & survey report as well as in pursuant of written consent & discharge voucher as to full & final satisfaction by the complainant, under NEFT vide dated 22.07.2019 to the bank account of the complainant maintained in State Bank of India, Sector-12, Faridabad. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Registered notice sent to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of “Refusal”. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2022.
4. Notice issued to opposite party No.3 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that item delivery confirmed. Hence, opposite party No.3 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2021.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Bharti AXA Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the payment of Rs.1,55,000/- @ 18% per annum from the date of damage of
the insured vehicle in accident i.e. 16.4.2019 till its actual realization.. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shubham Jagar, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C-2 – Certificate of insurance cum schedule, Ex.C-3 – driving licence, Ex.C-4 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-5 - Tax invoice,, Ex.C-6 – GST invoice, Ex.C-7 – receipt of Rs.7,918/-,, Ex.C-8 receipt of Rs.3,79,586/-.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Rohan Mishra, Manager (Legal), M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance co. Ltd. Ex.R-1 – RC,, Ex.R-2 – Certificate of insurance cum schedule, Ex.R-3 – driving licence, Exs.R-4 – Motor Insurance- Claim Form,, Ex.R-5 - Estimate of repairs,, Exs.R-6 – Own Damage Investigation Report, Ex.R-7 – Tax invoice, Ex.R-8 – Bill Book, Ex.R-9 – Motor Final Survey Report, Ex.R-10 – Motor Repair Assessment cum processing sheet,, Ex/R-11 – letter written by the complainant to Bharti AXA General Ins. Co., Ex.R-12 – letter written by the complainant to Bharti AXA General Insurance co. Ltd., Ex.R-13 - reminder letter dated 12.06.2019, Ex.R-14 – Discharge voucher.
8. In this complaint, the complainant has prayed in his prayer clause to make the payment of Rs.1,55,000/- @ 18% per annum from the date of damage of the insured vehicle in accident i.e. 16.4.2019 till its actual realization.
9. Though the fact of full and final settlement of Rs. 1,80,000/- has not been brought to the notice of this Commission by the complainant, it is evident from the documents submitted by opposite party No. 1 vide Ex.R-14 that a full and final settlement to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- has already been arrived at and
the complainant has also signed on the discharge voucher.
10. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 01.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
