District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.223/2022.
Date of Institution: 26.04.2022.
Date of Order: 03.03.2023.
Pardeep Singh Parmar S/o Anand Pal Singh Parmar presently residing at: House NO. 1342, Sector-8, Faridabad, Haryana, Permanent resident of : House No. 126, Near Post Office Rithala, Rajapur Kalan, Rohinil Sectr-7, North West Delhi – 110 015.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-II, Shopping Complex, 2nd floor, Sector-16, Pandit Krishna Dutt Marg, Faridabad, Haryana – 121007.
2. Manager, M/.s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO-II, Shopping Complex, 2nd floor, Sector -16, Pandit Krishna Dutt Marg, Faridabad, Haryana – 121007.
3. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Flat NO. 10-15, 14th floor, Vijaya Building – 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001.
4. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered office: Reliance Centre, 19, Waichand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001.
…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. Jatinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of Toyota Fortuner car having engine NO. 1GDA070652 and chassis No. MBJBA3FS000803268 bearing registration NO. DL-01CW-8181 which was got insured from the opposite party. The above mentioned Toyota Fortuner car was comprehensively insured by the opposite parties with return to invoice coverage vide insurance policy bearing NO. TRG/00019518 valid from 13.02.2019 to 12.02.2020 for the insured value of Rs.24,55,749/-, whereas the return to invoice sum insured was Rs.35,73,970/-. The complainant being the owner of the above mentioned Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181, used to get the service of the above mentioned car at the authorized service station of Toyota cars at M/s. Galaxy Toyota, F-84, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, South Delhi, where he met and became friends with the Dheeraj Kumar, the Service Manager of the above mentioned authorized service station namely Akhilesh Kumar Jha. Over the period of time, the friendly relations of the complainant with the Service Manager namely Dheeraj Kumar grew stronger and on 28.10.2019, the above mentioned Dheeraj Kumar asked the complainant that he
wanted to travel to Bihar with his friends,, for which he wanted the above mentioned Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181, in order to travel in comfort as the journey to Bihar was a long one. Unfortunately, the insured Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181 met with an accident on 01.11.2019 at about 8:30 PM near Tara Chowk, Mahua Jandaha Road, when the insured Toyota Fortuner was being driven by one Vivekanand Rai @ Vivek Kumar Rai when some motorcycle riders driving their motorcycles in a rash and negligent manner, all of a sudden came in front of the above mentioned Toyota Fortuner car. It was submitted that the above mentioned motorcycle riders were riding their motorcycles in a zig zag manner as they all were under the influence of alcohol which was consumed by them in Village Rasalpur, Jandaha where all bike riders had gone to attend a birthday party of a known relative of one of the bike riders. The accident took place due to the sole negligence of the bike riders as they were under a heavy influence of alcohol which all the riders/pillion riders consumed in the above mentioned birthday party. The above mentioned Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181 was being driven by one Vivekanand Rai @ Vivek Kumar Rai, the friend of the Service Manager, Dheeraj Kumar who was friends with the complainant. After the occurrence of the accident, the matter was reported to the police and the FIR No. 267 dated 02.11.2019 was registered u/s 279/337/335/302/34 IPC in Police Station Jandaha, District Vaishali, Bihar and the captioned case FIR was pending trial before the Hon’ble Trial Court, Vaishali, Bihar. The entire version narrated in the above mentioned FIR was nothing but a sheer lie and a concocted story, plotted by the prosecution to extort huge sums of money out of the pocket of the alleged accused persons under the garb of the above mentioned FIR by manipulating the true and actual facts of a simple case of unfortunate accident in order to make it more sever
offience. After the accident, the above mentioned FIR was registered and the intimation of the same was passed on to the complainant on 06.11.2019 by Dheeraj Kumar. After gaining the knowledge of the above mentioned accident, the complainant immediately intimated the claim to the opposite parties M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. On 06.11.2019 vide claim No. CLM00019518/010325. After occurrence of the above mentioned accident, the damaged Toyota Fortuner car being the case property was seized by the police officials of Police Station Jandaha, District Vaishali, Bihar which was later got released on superdari by the complainant Pardeep Singh Parmar vide release order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Trial Court, directing the SHO, PS Jandaha, Vaishali for releasing the damaged Toyota Fortuner car. After the release of the above mentioned Toyota Fortuner car vide order dated 05.12.2020, the damaged Toyota Fortuner car was brought to the Authorized Service Station of Toyota cars i.e. at Galazy Toyota, A Unit of Galazy Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., F-84, Okhla Industrial area, Phase-1, south Delhi and on reaching the above mentioned authorized service station, the estimate of the repairing cost of the damaged Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181 was scheduled and accordingly the surveyor Vikas Kumar was deputed by the opposite parties. On 21.12.2020 the estimate was prepared vide estimate No. BPE20-03863 dated 21.12.2020 , in the presence of the surveyor namely Vikas Kumar deputed by the opposite parties. The surveyor carried out the inspection of the vehicle and prepared his survey report accordingly. As per the above mentioned estimate, the total repairing cost of the damaged Toyota Fortuner car was assessed to be Rs.28,61,019.93. As per the insurance policy bearing No. TRG/00019518, covering the insurance risk from 13.2.2019 to 12.02.2020 pertaining to be damaged Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181 had a total IDV value of Rs.24,55,749/-, whereas the return to
invoice sum insured was Rs.35,73,970/-. As per the prevailing insurance laws in the country, if the cost of repairing the vehicle was more than 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle then in that even the claim of the insured was considered to be a case of total loss. However, as per the insurance policy, the IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.24,55,749/-, whereas the estimated cost of repair was Rs.28,61,019.93/-, i.e. more than the IDV value of the vehicle, which means that the present case rightly falls into the category of a total loss case and as such was liable to be considered to be a total loss case. However, in the present case, the insured/complainant had taken an Add On Coverage of RTI Coverage i.e. Return To Invoice for which the opposite parties had charged and taken extra premium from the insured/complainant by which the opposite parties had insured the invoice value of the above mentioned Toyota Fortuner Car. As per the insurance policy, the RTI sum insured amounts to Rs.35,73,970/-, which the insured/complainant was entitled to recover from the opposite parties.
The complainant kept on exhaustively pursuing the Service Manager, Dheeraj Kumar and the surveyor deputed by the opposite arties, but at every such interval the complainant was never provided with a satisfactory answer. Moreover, the opposite parties kept on dilly delaying the claim of the complainant. The complainant started chasing the Service Manager and the surveyor deputed by the opposite parties for the release of the total loss claim towards the RTI sum insured amount of Rs.35,73,970/-, upon each and every meeting and correspondence of the complainant with the above Service Manager, the Surveyor Vikas Kumar and the opposite parties, all assured the complainant that the claim was under process and would be released through either account payee cheque nor through the bank RTGS/NEFT but to the sheer disappointment of the complainant, no amount ever got released to the complainant. The complainant having no knowledge of the
insurance tactics on the part of the opposite parties and believing the opposite arties to be true in their words and action, always returned back with hopes that the total loss claim to the tune of the RTI Sum Insured Add On coverage amount of Rs.35,73,970/- would be released shortly to the complainant. After gaining the knowing of the fact that the claim of the complainant had been closed by the opposite parties, the complainant contacted and visited the Service Manager at the Toyota cars Workshop, where the surveyor Vikas Kumar was also present. The complainant inquired about the current status of the claim and asked about the status of the claim, upon which the Service Manager and the surveyor again gave false assurance to the complainant that his claim was under process and the amount should be credited to the account of the complainant any time. The complainant after hearing to the false assurances confronted the Service Manager and the surveyor that they were making a fool of the complainant as his claim was closed by the opposite parties to which the Service Manager and the surveyor replied that his claim was closed that too without any justified ground, which fact was deliberately withheld by the surveyor and the Service Manager in connivance with the opposite parties. The surveyor had intentionally given false report towards the claim of the complainant that the complainant was not interested in continuing his claim and wanted to withdraw the same. It was submitted that the opposite parties had turned dishonest and in order to frustrate the genuine total loss claim of the complainant, the opposite parties had crated false and manipulated documents with the sole intention of not making the payment of the genuine total loss claim of Rs.35,73,970/- towards the RTI sum insured add on coverage taken by the complainant by making the payment of extra premium to the opposite parties. The opposite parties had closed the genuine total loss claim of the complainant alleging that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the total loss claim and wanted
to withdraw the same. The complainant never entered into any such kind of conversation or ever communicated to the surveyor deputed by the opposite party that the complainant was not interested in pursuing his genuine total loss claim of Rs.35,73,970/-. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) make the payment of Rs.35,73,970/- to the complainant towards the RTI sum insured of the damaged Toyota Fortuer Car alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident of the insured Toyota Fortuner car till its actual payment.
b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 55,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the claim was intimated by the complainant on 6 Nov. 2019 that the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident and he was interested to take the claim, FIR which claim was registered and claim was intimated vide its No. 3119258965. After the claim was intimated and surveyor was deputed, complainant was not interested in claiming the OD claim, as he informed the assessor for which letter vide dated 26.11.2019 alongwith POD. The complaint was against the facts and concealment of facts from the court, defective, not maintainable and no case was made out in favour of complainant as the complaint was not duly verified and attested one also and the complainant had refused to get the OD claim from the insurance company. It was responsibility of complainant to submit entire,
complete and true information to the company before rushing to the Hon’ble Commission. Opposite parties 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 parties– Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the payment of Rs.35,73,970/- to the complainant towards the RTI sum insured of the damaged Toyota Fortuer Car alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident of the insured Toyota Fortuner car till its actual payment. b) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 55,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Pardeep Singh Parmar, Ex.C-1 - RC, Ex.C-2 – insurance policy, Ex.C-3 – Indian Driving Licence, Bihar, Ex.C-4 – FIR, Ex.C-5 – Claim detail, Ex.C-6 – letter to SHO Vaishali regarding release of vehicle, Ex.C-7 - Estimate No. BPE20-03863, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 26.11.2019 regarding closing the claim as “Claim withdrawn”.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex. RW1/A – affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Thakur, manager (Legal) M/s. Reliance General Insurance Compay Limited, Regional Office, SCO-57-58-59, 4th floor, Opposite Hotel Taj,
Sector-17A, Chandigarh . Ex. R-2 – letter dated 06.11.2019, Ex.R-3 – letter dated 26.11.2019 regarding the closing the claim as “Claim withdrawn”.
6. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant for the damage of the car. As per insurance policy vide Ex.C-2 bearing No. TRG/00019518 valid from 13.02.2019 to 12.02.2020, pertaining to the damaged Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. DL-01CW-8181, has a total IDV value of Rs.24,55,749/-, whereas, the Return to Invoice (RTI) sum insured is Rs.35,73,970/-. As per the prevailing Insurance Laws in the country, if the cost of repairing the vehicle is more than 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle then in that event the claim of the insured is considered to be a case of Total Loss.. However, as per insurance policy vide Ex.C-2, the IDV value of the vehicle in question is Rs.24,55,749/-, whereas, the estimate cost of repair is Rs.28,61,019.93 vide Ex. C-7 i.e. more than the IDV value of the vehicle, which means that the present case rightly falls into the category of a Total Loss case. In this case, the complainant has taken an Add On Coverage of RTI Coverage i.e. Return to Invoice for which the opposite parties had charged and taken extra premium form the insured/complainant by which the opposite parties had insured the invoice value of the above mentioned Toyota Fortuner Car. As per Ex.R1 – the price of the vehicle in road on Rs.34,53,966/-. As per the estimate submitted by the complainant Ex.C-7, there is endorsement of the name of the surveyor namely Mr.Vikas Kumar. It means that the estimate of the damage vehicle was prepared in the presence of Mr. Vikas Kumar who is the approved surveyor of the insurance company.
7. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the estimated loss is Rs.28,61,019.93,. It means the vehicle in question is Total Loss. We assess the salvage value of the vehicle in question is Rs.5,00,000/-. The details are as under:
DETAILS:
RTI sum insured : Rs.35,73,970/-
IDV valve of Car : Rs.24,55,749/-
On Road Price : Rs.34,53,996/-
Less cost of wreckage : Rs.5,00,000/- (with RC)
Net liability with wreckage : Rs.34,53,996/- minus 5,00,000/-
(wreckage) =Rs.29,53,996/-
8. The learned counsel for complainant during arguments stated that the loss be given on total loss basis and the wreckage be given to the opposite parties and the complainant wants its cost. The complainant did not want to keep the wreckage with him, therefore, in these circumstances the complainant is entitled for the cost of the wreckage and the wreckage will remain with the opposite parties.
9. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.34,53,996/- to the complainant on total loss basis, subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35 and undertaking that he will not claim anything about the damage of the vehicle in question. In case the complainant keeps the wreckage, then he is entitled for Rs. 29,53,996/-. There are
no order as to costs . Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 03.03.2023 (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.
