BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No : 1456 of 2009

Date of Institution:    23.11.2009

Date of Decision  :    31.08.2010

M/s. World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., through its Authorized Representative Sh.Rajiv Bajaj, SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) though its Chairman, SCO No.212-213, Sector 34, First Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

2]       M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) through its General Manager, SCO No.212-213, Sector 34, First Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

3]       M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Rajesh Sharma, Sr.Manager, SCO 212-213, First Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

  .…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.Raman Walia, Adv. For the complainant.

Sh.Paras Mani Goyal, Adv. For the OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by WWICS Ltd. against the OPs alleging deficiency in service in the settlement of the insurance claim of their accidented car.

                The facts of the case areas under:-

1]             The complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its Head Office at SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.  The complainant purchased a vehicle make BMW X Series X5 3.0 D from M/s. Krishna Automobiles, 125 Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh vide invoice dated 29.7.2008 for an amount of  Rs.57,95,000/-.  The car was purchased after availing loan from HDFC Bank.  The vehicle was insured with M/s Reliance General Insurance Company vide Private Car Policy from 29.7.2008 to 28.7.2009 and annual net premium amount of Rs.1,18,640/- was paid.  The Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle as per the insured was Rs.55,05,250/-.  Unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on 18.12.2008 at Chandigarh and suffered extensive damage due to rolling over thrice.  An FIR was lodged with the Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, which has been placed at Ann. C-3.  The OPs were also informed about the accident on 30.12.2010. Sh.Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by the OP’s to assess the loss and prepare an estimate for repair.  As per report of the Surveyor placed at Ann.C-4, the damage to the vehicle was assessed at Rs.41,95,457/-.

                The complainant demands that since the repair value of the vehicle crossed 75% of IDV, therefore, the vehicle was to be declared as total loss as per terms of insurance policy.  However, the OPs refused to do so.

                On 12.2.2009 another Surveyor Er.Vinod Kumar Sharma, independently surveyed the same vehicle and vide his report placed on record assessed the loss at Rs.41,56,839/-.  This Surveyor remarked that “It would therefore not be much economical to get the vehicle repaired as after major repairs the vehicle would not come to its original position.”

                The complainant’s request for declaring the car as total loss was thus turned down by the OP. The complainant then requested the OPs to issue a Road Worthy Certificate that incase repair was done on the vehicle, then it would be restored to its original position and would be safe to drive.  All 6 air-bags of the vehicle had burst open from the impact of the accident.  A copy of this letter has been placed at Ann.C-6.  Also M/s Krishna Automobiles vide their letter dated 18.4.2009 had informed the complainant that the vehicle could be repaired and restored to a safe road worthy condition.  They had also stated that the repair estimate could change once the car was dismantled and actually repaired.

                The complainant has alleged that as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy placed at   Ann.C-9, “The insured vehicle shall be treated as a case of total loss if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds 75% of the IDV of the Vehicle.”  Despite this the OPs kept delaying the settlement of claim and only paid Rs.22,99,000/- to the complainant as claim amount.  An additional sum of Rs.20.00 lacs was received on sale of salvage to a 3^rd party with the help of the OPs.  The total amount thus paid to the complainant was Rs.42.99 lacs. which is more than 75% of IDV. Alleging that the final settlement of the claim and amount awarded as compensation is far less than the amount demanded and rightfully due to the complainant, they have filed the instant complaint claiming the balance amount of Rs.12,05,250/- as well as compensation for deficiency in service by the OPs.    

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.  The OPs have filed a joint reply. 

3]             In the reply the OPs have admitted that the policy was extended to the complainant for the vehicle, subject to the terms & conditions as per Ann.R-1.  Mr. Kailash Chandra, Surveyor was appointed to assessed the damage & loss.  As per the report of the Surveyor at Annexure R-2, the cash loss/net salvage value was assessed at Rs.22,99,000/-.  As per this report, the vehicle was very much repairable and was not a case of total loss within the meaning of the policy.  Hence, as per the request and consent of the complainant, the cash loss settlement was agreed upon, and the value of claim was assessed at Rs.22,99,000/-.  This was less than 75% of the IDV.  The report of Vinod Kumar Sharma, Surveyor is not admissible as evidence as he is not an authorized surveyor of the OPs.  Even otherwise, the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.22,99,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim.  Further, the complainant has sold of the salvage of the vehicle for a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs directly to a third party but with the assistance of the OPs.  After receipt of both the said amounts, the complainant is now only indulging in false and frivolous litigation in holding the Ops liable for deficiency in service.

4]             Further, the Ops have alleged that the claim process was settled immediately  on receipt of information of accident and the complainant was never asked to sign on any blank consent form.  The liability of the insurance company was only Rs.22,99,000/- as per the report of the Surveyor and the complainant is now very cleverly crying to make out a new case by adding the salvage value of Rs.20.00 lacs to the claim amount to show the value of the damages to the tune of Rs.42,99,000/-. In view of the above, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence, documents as well as Surveyor’s report placed on record by the parties.

6]             The alleged report of the Surveyor placed on record by the complainant is only an estimate/service quote for the repair of the vehicle.  The report of Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Surveyor will not have any value as he is not the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance for settlement of claim.  The report of the Surveyor has been placed on record by the OPs at Ann.R-2 wherein the net claim amount has been shown as Rs.22.99 lacs.  The amount was paid by the OP to the complainant in full and final settlement of its claim.  The additional amount of Rs.20.00 lacs for salvage was paid directly by the buyers to the complainant with the assistance of OPs. A Discharge Voucher, signed by the complainant wherein he had taken the amount of Rs.22.99 lacs in full and final settlement of his claim, for present or for future arising directly/indirectly in respect of the said loss/accident has been placed on record.

7]             The OPs have also placed on record the Consent Letter along with covering letter dated 3.9.2009 received from the complainant whereby they have agreed to accept the full and final settlement of the claim on “net of salvage/cash loss” basis for Rs.23.0 lacs.  The policy would then stand cancelled immediately upon settlement and no further dispute/issue against the settlement of this claim against the OPs would arise. 

8]             Otherwise also a perusal of the record shows that M/s. Krishna Automobiles on receiving the accidented vehicle had written to the complainant that the vehicle could be repaired and restored to a safe and roadworthy condition.  The repairs work would take about 3 months.    

9]             In view of the documents already mentioned above as well as the letter of M/s Krishna Automobiles, especially the Consent Letter and Discharge Voucher signed by the complainant, there is no justification for this complaint.  They cannot now plead for payment of balance amount of the insured value of the car as well as compensation from the OPs after signing the discharge voucher.  This is unfair and unjustified on the part of the complainant.  The OPs have already settled the claim to the satisfaction of the complainant and hence, the amount has been disbursed to them.  The net salvage value of the damaged vehicle amounting to Rs.20.00 lacs has also been received by the complainant directly from the buyer.  The policy now already stands cancelled.

10]            In view of the above discussion and findings, we do not find any cause to substantiate the claim of the complainant. The OPs have already satisfied their part of the commitment in terms of the policy. No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the OPs.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Announced

31^st Aug., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                          Sd/-

                                                             (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’