District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.599/2023.
Date of Institution:14.09.2023.
Date of Order: 25.10.2024.
Rattan Singh aged about 61 years s/o late Sh. Laxman Singh R/o Village Sihi, Sector-8, Faridabad – 121006, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office: Plot NO.6, Adjacent to Metro Pillar No. 81, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005 through its Divisional Manager/principal Officer.
…Opposite party……
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: Complainant in person.
Shri Rakesh Dabaas,, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle TVS Scooty (Ntorq) bearing its registration No. HR-51-CA-3993. The aforesaid vehicle duly insured with the opposite party
bearing policy NO. 3406/00422447/000/00 valid form 07.10.2021 to 06.10.2022. On 16.12.2021, the said vehicle/scooty met with an accident and front portion of the said vehicle completely damaged. However, no injuries were sustained by the complainant or the driver of offending vehicle or any other person. The complainant duly intimate the opposite party and requested for disbursal for the amount of repairing the said vehicle and the opposite party assured the complainant to get the said vehicle repaired form authorized service center of TVS and hence, the complainant got the said damaged scooty repaired from Royal TVS, Ballabgarh and said agency raised a bill/invoice No. 301899 dated 28.12.2021 for Rs.9,359/- total sum of Rs.15,397/-. The complainant duly informed the opposite party and requested to disburse the said amount of invoice but the opposite party did not pay any heed and the complainant had to deposit the entire billing amount of Rs.15,397/- to said agency. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.08.2023 to opposite party but all in vain.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) pay the repairing cost of the said insured vehicle for Rs.15,397/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective invoices till realization.
b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that at the very threshold of the allegations contained in the complaint, in view of the relied upon documents, it was established that the insurance company had already released the payable claim amount as Rs.4477/- vide UTR NO. Q3101387 dated 15.02.2022 in full & final settlement to the repair under cashless facility,
thus, the present complaint was not maintainable and deserves dismissal outrightly with cost of the proceedings. The complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present compliant. It was submitted that the complainant-insured had lodged his own damage claim as to damage to insured vehicle occurred on 20.10.2021 with the insurance company under cash less scheme through repairer by sharing the repair bills for amounting Rs.15397/- and for which the insurance company had deputed an IRDA Licenced Independent Surveyor so as to assess the loss, in turn, after survey, the said surveyor had submitted his survey report, whereby, assessed the payable loss as Rs.4477/-, resultantly, the insurance company had already released the said payable claim amount in full & final settlement to repairer, which decision could not be termed unconscionable at all. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Cholamandalum MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.with the prayer to: a) pay the repairing cost of the said insured vehicle for Rs.15,397/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective invoices till realization. b pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Rattan Singh, Ex.C-1 – photocopy of RC,, Ex.C-2 – insurance
policy, Ex.C-3 -& 4 – invoices, Ex.C-5- legal notice,, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt,.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party vide Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Nishant Gera, Deputy Manager (Legal), M/s. Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot NO. 39, 2nd floor, Opposite Metro Pillar O. 120, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh,, Ex.R-1 – insurance policy, Ex.R-2 – Claim form, Ex.R-3 & 4– service invoice, Ex.R-5 – Motor Final Survey report, Ex.R-6 – payment details, Ex.R-7 – DO/liability letter.
6. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to pay the repairing cost of the said insured vehicle for Rs.15,397/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective invoices till realization. To prove his case, the complainant led in his evidence Ex. C-1 to C-6. Opposite party led in their evidence Ex.R-1 to R-7..
7. As per DO/liability letter dated 11.02.022 in which it has been mentioned “Please collect following documents alongwith original invoice, satisfaction voucher & discharge voucher for further payment process and an amount of Rs.4477/- and Rs.100/- as excess fee was given which was approved by the surveyor as per motor final survey report vide Ex.R-5.” But the complainant who himself is an Advocate taken this amount under protest never issued the discharge voucher or satisfaction voucher.
8. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that total bill was of Rs.15,397/- and the opposite party has paid for Rs.4500/- as assessed by the surveyor. The surveyor is the paid employee of the company approved by IRDA. Approval was on the lower side. We pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sump. Opposite party has already paid Rs.4500/- to
the repairer. As per Ex.R7 it was to deliver, subject to the satisfaction voucher but opposite party has paid to the repairer. Hence, the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant more. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 25.10.2024. (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.
