Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/195/2023

KRISHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/195/2023
Date of Institution	:	12/04/2023
Date of Decision	:	03/06/2024

Krishan Singh son of Shri Goverdhan Singh Guleria, #564/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh 160036.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017.
2. M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017 through its General Manager.
3. M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017 through its Manager.
4. M/s Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 155, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002 through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant
	:	Complaint against OPs 1 & 2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.4.2023.
	:	Sh.Sahil Abhi, Advocate for OP-3
	:	Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate, Proxy for Sh.Gandharv Malhotra, Advocate for OP-4.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Krishan Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai Verna car bearing registration No.CH01 BE 0880 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”), which was got insured by him from the OP insurance company vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1), valid w.e.f. 14.10.2021 to 13.10.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).  On 6.9.2022, when the subject car was parked in the parking area of Sector 41A, Chandigarh (near Govt. Model High School), its Electronic Control Unit (ECM) was stolen. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the police in pursuance to which DDR No.079 dated 6.9.2022 (Annexure C-2) and FIR No.0147 dated 11.9.2022 (Annexure C-3) were recorded by the police.  Intimation qua the said theft was also given by the complainant to OPs 1 to 3/insurer and they deputed the surveyor, who visited the spot and directed the complainant to take the subject car to the authorised service centre i.e. OP-4 for assessment of loss of stolen parts.  Accordingly, on 7.9.2022, complainant took the subject car to OP-4 by arranging recovery van and paid ₹1,800/- for the same vide cash memo (Annexure C-4). The surveyor appointed by the OPs had assessed the loss to the stolen part i.e. ECM to the tune of ₹55,465/- and the copy of the estimate is Annexure C-5. Thereafter the complainant submitted the documents with OPs 1 to 3/insurer for settlement of claim and it was assured to him that the payment would be made by the OPs to the tune of ₹57,265/-, which includes labour charges and cost of the stolen part.  However, OPs/insurer failed to pay the said amount, including the towing charges, and the complainant was compelled to make the payment of ₹55,465/- to the repairer (OP-4) for installation of the stolen part.  OPs were requested several times to reimburse the claim and the complainant had even sent a registered letter dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure C-7), but, with no result.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. The consumer complaint against OPs 1 & 2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.4.2023.
3. OP-3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was insured by the answering OP and that the claim was lodged by the complainant regarding the alleged theft of ECM part of the subject car.  It is further alleged, upon receiving claim of complainant, answering OP deputed surveyor and loss assessor who personally inspected the vehicle and thereafter prepared his report dated 2.10.2022 (Ex.OP-2), assessing the loss to the tune of ₹28,707/-.  On receiving the report and after scrutinizing the documents, complainant was called upon vide letter dated 17.11.2022 to submit final untraceable report under Section 173 Cr.PC and was further called vide letter dated 9.2.2023 and reminder dated 7.3.2023 that his claim for ₹28,707/- has been approved and he was asked to submit the letter of subrogation and letter of indemnity and bank particulars so that full and final settlement of claim could be made.  However, as the complainant did not submit the said documents, his claim could not be settled and the answering OP is still ready to pay the aforesaid amount of ₹28,707/- in full and final settlement of claim. On merits, facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its separate written version OP-4 took the preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was brought to its service centre for repair work and the same was done by the answering OP and invoice dated 27.9.2022 (Annexure OP-4/3) of ₹55,465/- was generated.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. The complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car and the same was insured with OP-3/insurer vide subject policy (Annexure OP-1) and the ECM of the subject car was stolen on 6.9.2022 and the complainant immediately reported the matter to the police in pursuance to which GDD (Annexure C-2) and FIR (Annexure C-3) were recorded and the complainant got the subject car repaired from OP-4 by paying an amount of ₹55,465/- besides ₹1,800/- as towing charges, as is also evident from the receipt (Annexure C-6) and bill (Annexure C-4) and the OP/insurer had deputed surveyor on receiving information about the theft and he assessed the loss to the tune of ₹28,707/-, as is also evident from copy of survey report  (Ex.OP-5), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-3/ insurer is unjustified in only partially approving the claim of the complainant to the tune of ₹28,707/- and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-3 has rightly approved the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP/insurer.
   2. Perusal of the subject policy (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the subject car was insured with OP-3/ insurer at the relevant time as the same was valid w.e.f. 14.10.2021 to 13.10.2022 and the ECM was stolen on 6.9.2022 from the subject car.
   3. Annexure OP-5 is the survey report around which the entire case of the parties is revolving. In his report the surveyor has though assessed the cost of the stolen part i.e. ECM to the tune of ₹44,504.23 by referring that the same was an electronic control part, but, has made deduction to the tune of ₹22,252.12 on account of metal and plastic part.  Thus, one thing is clear from the surveyor report that the surveyor has wrongly made deduction of ₹22,252.12 on account of metal and plastic part, knowing fully well that the subject part i.e. ECM was electronic control part in the subject car and no such deduction was permissible even as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy, especially when nothing has been mentioned by the surveyor in his report how he had formed the opinion that the  said electronic control part (ECM) was made of metal and plastic. 
   4. Thus, one thing is clear that the surveyor of the OP had made wrong assessment qua the loss of the subject part i.e. ECM by making illegal deduction on account of metal and plastic and the complainant is entitled for the total cost of the said part alongwith repair, labour and towing charges, which have also been assessed by the surveyor in the second last para of his report. 
   5. In this manner, it is unsafe to hold that OP-3/insurer was justified in only partially allowing the claim of the complainant and he is held entitled for an amount of ₹44,504.23 (rounded off to ₹44,504/-) being the cost of part i.e. ECM, ₹2,950/- as labour charges and ₹1,500/- as towing charges totaling to ₹48,954/- (44,504 + 2,950 + 1,500) less compulsory deductible of ₹2,000/- i.e. net amount of ₹46,954/- alongwith interest and compensation etc.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-3 is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹46,954/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of partial approval of claim i.e. 7.3.2023 onwards.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-3 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-4, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member