Haryana

Ambala

CC/349/2021

M/S C.Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SBI General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Gupta

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	349 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	10.11.2021
Date of decision	:	02.11.2023

 

M/S C. Lal Marketing Ltd. through its authorized signatory Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta son of Sh. Nathu Ram Gupta, resident of 126, Sector 1, HUDA, Ambala City.

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. through its authorized signatory SCO No.335- 336, Sector 35-B 1st & 2nd Floor, Chandigarh 160022
2. M/S Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory, Opposite Spring Field Public School, NH- 22, Village Saddopur, District Ambala.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

         Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Shri Vishal Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                  Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.                                                                                                                                               Shri Gursewak Singh Antal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.13,055/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony.
3. To pay cost of litigation.

OR

Grant any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Car Toyota ETIOS LIVA bearing registration No.HR02AM-5028 from its registered owner Paramjit Singh son of Manjit Singh on 15.09.2020. On 17.09.2020 an application along with Form No.29 and other requisite documents were submitted to the Registration Authority Ambala City/S.D.M. Office, Ambala City for the transfer of the said vehicle in the name of complainant i.e. M/s C. Lal Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and the registration of the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant. The complainant received the registration certificate (RC) from Registration Authority Ambala City/S.D.M. Office, Ambala City on 05.10.2020. Thereafter the endorsement of the insurance was also affected in favor of complainant by the OPs on 14.10.2020 after charging endorsement fee and after proper verification and physical inspection of the vehicle in question. In the month of December 2020 the vehicle in question met with a minor accident (Struck against an animal) while plying on road and suffered damage on wind screen and other parts of chassis of the vehicle. The vehicle was sent to OP No. 2 for its repair as OP No. 2 is also the authorized dealer of Globe Toyota. The authorized representative/agent of OP No.1 made a survey and took pictures of damaged vehicle. The vehicle was repaired by OP No. 2. The total charges/bill (insurance claim) for the repair of the vehicle came to Rs.34,647/- vide Tax Invoice No. INB20-00694 dated 22.12.2020. However, only the claim of Rs.21,592/- has been passed by the OP No.1 and the claim of rest of the amount of Rs.13,055/- has been rejected wrongly and illegally, on the ground that the wind screen (Glass) had a patch prior to the endorsement of insurance of vehicle. As such, the complainant was forced to pay the said amount of Rs.13,055/- to OP No.2 for the delivery of the vehicle.. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not tenable as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission; the instant complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 processed the claim of the complainant only after due perusal of all documents received and within the precincts of terms and conditions of the policy. An Insurance Contract has following four essential ingredients, insofar as to claim indemnification i.e. i) Utmost good faith, ii) Insurable interest iii) Valid consideration and iv) Actual damages. Unless all the above requirements are met with, insured cannot seek any indemnification from the Insurer. The complainant informed OP No. 1 regarding the loss of Vehicle which took place on 10.12.2020. It is a matter of record that the OP No.1 consequent upon the information, appointed surveyor Mr. Gurjinder Singh, who lost no time and prepared the report on the basis of physical verification, assessed payable claim amount of  Rs. 21,592/-. The surveyor has made the deduction of Rs.13,055/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. Deductions made in the invoice is explained herein below:

Sr. No.	Particulars	Amount
	Invoice Amount
	Less Depreciation Amount
C.	Less Excess Clause
D.	Less Wind Screen Replacement Cost
	Total Payable (A-B-C-D)

The Surveyor of the Company had inspected the vehicle in question and as per his detailed report wind screen was not found damage in accident. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and verified the genuineness of the parts required to be replaced and repaired. The surveyor has made deduction of Rs.13,055/- as per terms and condition of the policy. The deduction towards "wind screen replacement" was made as it was found in pre-inspection that the Wind screen was damaged at the time of issuance of policy in question. The aforementioned fact has come to notice through pre-inspection report dated 13/10/2020. OP No. 1 took all possible steps to ensure that the claim is processed in tune with the terms and conditions of the Policy & released the amount of Rs.21592/- directly in the account of OP No.2 through NEFT. The complainant executed CLAIM DISCHARGE CUM SATISFACTION VOUCHER as full & final settlement of his claim. The complainant is not entitled for an amount Rs.13,055/- as compensation for wind screen and other deductions. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that there is no specific allegation qua any deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.2, therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed; the complainant had already filed one complaint bearing number CC/28/2021 against the Insurance Company and OP No.1. As per online updation available on confonet website, the said complaint has been filed by the complainant on 18.01 2021. As per online updation available on confonet website, the instant complaint bearing number CC/349/2021 has been filed by the complainant on 10.11.2021 with the allegations pertaining to partial settlement of insurance claim qua work done in December 2020 and as such, filing of subsequent complaint is barred by law and not maintainable etc. On merits, it has been stated that the vehicle in question was reported to OP No.2 for accidental repair on 11.12.2020. Thereafter the claim intimation was lodged with the concerned Insurance Company i.e. OP No.1 on 12.12.2020. Accordingly, the vehicle in question was inspected by the surveyor of the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question. It is a matter of record that the claim of repair of windshield of the vehicle in question was rejected by OP No.1 on ground that the scar on windshield glass was pre- existing and was present on the date of inspection by the Insurance Company at the time of endorsement of insurance policy in the name of the complainant company. Complainant was duly informed about the same and it was after the approval given by the complainant company to repair the vehicle in question, the same was repaired and the Job Order was opened on 16.12.2020. The vehicle in question was duly repaired and the Invoice dated 22.12.2020 for an amount of Rs.34,647/- was generated. The unapproved job work by Insurance Company was done only after the approval of the complainant and the complainant paid the difference amount of Rs.13,055/- without any protest. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A, alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered evidence of Jitendra Dhabhai, Manager Legal and Authorized Signatory of OP No.1 Company-SBI General Insurance Company Limited and also Gurjinder Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, # Village Sanaulian Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala as Annexure OP-1/A and OP-1/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered evidence of OP No.2 by way of placing on record documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and have carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not paying claim amount in respect of the damaged windscreen of the vehicle in question, despite the fact that it was damaged in the accident during currency of the policy in question and on the other hand, disbursing partial claim amount of Rs.21,592/- out of invoice amount of Rs.34,647/-. OP No.1 has not only deficient in providing service but also indulged into unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that since at the time of inspection of the vehicle in question, it was noted down that the windscreen of the vehicle in question suffered scar thereupon and it was also made clear to the complainant that no claim whatsoever will be paid in respect of the said windscreen in case any claim arises in respect of the vehicle in question, as such, OP No.1 was right in not allowing claim against the damaged windscreen.
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that it has no relation whatsoever with rejection of partial claim of the complainant qua windscreen in question. He further submitted that OP No.2 had only repaired the damaged vehicle, including replacement of the windscreen.         
10.           Since, neither the insurance in question of the said vehicle by OP No.1; accident of the said vehicle as mentioned in the complaint; payment of partial claim amount of Rs.21,592/- out of invoice amount of Rs.34,647/-  and nonpayment of claim amount qua the replacement of windscreen are in dispute, as such, the only question which falls for determination in this case is, as to whether, the complainant is  entitled to get any amount towards replacement of the windscreen in question or not.  It may be stated here that from the Four Wheeler Inspection Report dated 13.10.2020, Annexure OP-1/4 which was got prepared by OP No.1 at the time of issuance of the policy in question, it is clearly coming out that a ‘scar on the Front Windscreen of the vehicle in question was found at the time of inspection of the said car. In the dictionary the meaning of scar has been given as blister, crater, defect etc. In the said report, in the column “Owner Declaration” which is duly signed and has not been disputed by the complainant, it has been mentioned that  repair/replacement of dented/cracked parts and repair painting of dented/scratched panels as per this inspection photographs shall be excluded in event of any claim lodged during the policy period.  

Since, from the report Annexure OP-1/4, it is clear that windscreen of the vehicle in question was already suffering from a scar i.e. blister, crater, defect and it was agreed that no claim out of the said windscreen under the policy in question while lodging any claim, will be claimed, as such, complainant cannot writhe out of the same.Under above circumstances, it can easily be said that the complainant has failed to prove that he is entitled to get any amount, qua the windscreen in question, over and above the amount already paid to him by the OPs under the claim in question. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. The application for dismissal of the complaint filed by the OP No.2 stands disposed of accordingly. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 02.11.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President