Delhi

North

RBT/CC/127/2022

ANIL KUMAR JHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT/CC No/127/2022

[DCDRC-V (NW) CC No. 247/2018]

 

In the matter of

Sh. Anil Kumar Jha

S/o Shri Subhdher Jha

R/oD-103, D Block, Prem Nagar-II

70 feet road, Kirari Suleman Nagar

Prem Nagar-110086

                                                                                                    ...Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd.

DOXIX, 2^nd floor, Laxmi Tower

Commercial Complex

Behind Akash Cinema

Azadpur, Delhi-110033                                                       …Opposite Party-1

 

2. Maruti Suzuki

(Marketing Times Automobiles Pvt.Ltd.)

18, Okhla Industrial Estate

Phase-III, New Delhi-110020                                              …Opposite Party-2

                                                                                   

ORDER
05/07/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. The complainant, Sh.Anil Kumar Jha has filed the present complaint under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against National Insurance Co.Ltd. (OP-1) and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as OP-2, with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. 
2. Facts as per complaint are, the complainant is an owner of vehicle bearing No.DL-1RT-0615, Maruti Eco.  The said vehicle was insured by OP-1 vide policy No.360800/31/13/6300000316 under certificate of insurance of passenger carrying commercial vehicle with IDV of Rs.2,88,000/- for a period from 22/04/2013 to 21/04/2014 and financed by State Bank of India.
3. On 29/08/2013, the vehicle met with an accident and was parked at the service centre of OP-2 for repair, where a verbal estimate of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-  was given by the official of OP-2 with the assurance that the vehicle would be repaired within one month.   
4. After one month, the complainant approached OP-2 but was informed that the repairs would take some more time.  Thereafter, again the complainant visited OP-2 where he was shocked to see that OP-2 had raised a bill of Rs.2,33,671/- for repairs. It has been alleged by the complainant that OP-1 cleared the claim of Rs.1,34,000/- only. The complainant requested the OP to process the balance claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but he was informed that his claim had been repudiated. 
5. Despite several visits and communication through emails, OP refused to settle the claim and even the Legal notice demanding the same was neither replied nor complied by the OP. 
6. The complainant has stated that there was a scheme launched by the bank for settlement of the matter with 50% discount in the month of December 2017.  In case OP-1 would have paid an amount up to Rs.1,10,000/-, then OP-2 would have cleared the case with the bank.  Thereafter, OP-1 paid Rs.1,18,000/- to OP-2 but OP-2 did not settle the case with the bank.  As the complainant is facing physical and mental harassment and monetary loss on account of OPs and his agents, the complainant has prayed for the directions to OP to :-
   1. Settle the case with bank
   2. Pay Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment, monetary loss and conveyance,
   3. Pay Rs.11,000/- for litigation cost and expenses &
   4. Any other further order in favour of the complainant and against the OP in the interest of justice.
7. The complainant has annexed the copy of the certificate of insurance, a letter dated 08/01/2014, Job card/Retail invoice dated 31/10/2013, Legal notice dated 01/06/2015, screen shot of the grievance registration form, an email dated 02/02/2018 and 06/02/2018 with the complaint.
8. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP-1 & OP-2.  None appeared on behalf of OP-2 despite service neither any reply was filed on their behalf, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04/06/2018. 
9. Written statement on behalf of OP-1 was filed, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as: no cause of action had accrued in the favour of the complainant; there was concealment of material facts from OP-1 and the complainant had not submitted the relevant documents sought by OP-1.
10.  It has been submitted that on 30/08/2013, the complainant had approached OP-1 and filed a claim intimation letter for Rs.3,16,660/-.  As the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 2,88,000/- , H.M.Gupta Auto & Company was appointed as surveyor, who, assessed the cost of repair to Rs.1,34,483/- minus salvage of Rs.4,483/- thus, the total amount of repairs as Rs.1,30,000/-. They have further submitted that the complainant had not produced the badge number of the driver and the abovesaid amount was subject to submission of following documents:-

1. Copy of FIR
2. Repairs bills-cum-receipt,
3. Cash memo of repair parts,
4. Registration certificate for verification along with photocopy,
5. Driver badge for verification along with photocopy,
6. Payment voucher duly discharged by insured,
7. Fitness certificate, and
8. Original cancelled cheque along with NEFT/RTGS Form

11. It was denied that the claim was not settled and repudiated, in fact the complainant had failed to submit the documents which were requested vide letter dated 10/01/2014 and subsequently on 19/02/2014, 04/03/2014, 14/03/2014 and finally on 31/03/2014, the claim of the complainant was closed on account of non-submission of required documents and the same was intimated to the complainant.
12. It has been denied that on 20/05/2014, the complainant as well as the General Manager of Marketing Times Automobiles, Sh. Gurmeet Singh, wrote a letter requesting for the cashless claim stating the financial hardship being faced by the complainant.  However, as per specific request made by the complainant the claim file was reopened.  Again, on 04/10/2017, a request for reopening the claim file was made by OP-1 to the concerned authority.  The complainant was called on 10/10/2017 for discussion, where it was observed that the matter could be settled on sub-standard basis and not on merit as the insured vehicle fell under commercial vehicle, commercial policy (passenger carrying).  The complainant was asked to submit original bill as well as payment receipt, which have not been submitted till date. 
13. Again, on 09/11/2017, the complainant admitted the non-submission of the document and requested for re-opening of the claim file.  A mail dated 02/11/2017 was sent to complainant after several reminders stating that the required documents had not been submitted. On 14/12/2017, the complainant again requested to pay Rs.1,34,000/- to his bank and sale out the insured vehicle (auction the car) with the request to resolve the issue, as the bank had launched the scheme, wherein if OP-1 settled the matter at 50% discount. 
14. They have further submitted that after exchange of various mails on different dates i.e. 15/12/2017 and 26/12/2017, ultimately, the claim of Rs.1,18,000/- was assessed and transferred to the complainant on 27/12/2017.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer to dismiss the complaint qua OP-1 with exemplary cost, as OP-1 had already paid 50% of the amount demanded by the complainant in year 2017.
15. OP-1 has annexed the claim intimation letter dated 30/08/2013 as Annexure A, Motor survey report dated 18/11/2013 as Annexure-B, letter dated 03/12/2013 requesting the complainant to submit documents as Annexure C, letter dated 10/01/2014, letter dated 19/02/2014, 04/03/2014, 14/03/2014 requesting cash memo of replaced parts as Annexure D, a letter dated 31/03/2014 intimating the complainant with respect to the closing of the claim file as Annexure E, letter dated 20/05/2014 as Annexure F.   A letter written by the General Manager (Bodyshop) Marketing Time Automobiles requesting cashless as Annexure G.  A letter dates 20/05/2014 request for reopening as Annexure H, email dated 10/10/2017 as Annexure I, letter from the complainant dated 09/11/2017, a letter dated 28/11/2017 as Annexure J (colly), emails dated 02/11/2017, 14/12/2017, 15/12/2017 are Annexure K to Annexure M respectively, a letter dated 26/12/2017 by OP-1 intimating the complainant to submit the satisfaction voucher as Annexure N,  emails dated 26/12/2017, 27/12/2017 & the settlement of claim are Annexure- O, Annexure –P  (colly) and Annexure Q respectively.  
16. Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant.  It has been submitted that the complainant was informed by the agent that FIR was not required as there was no damage to the third party.  The receipt of the notices has been admitted, however it has been submitted by the complainant that every time the complainant has submitted the relevant document as required by OP-1.  The final bill was not issued by the service centre because the payment was still pending therefore, the complainant had submitted a temporary bill of Rs.2,33,671/-.
17. It has been stated by the complainant that he had requested OP-1 to settle the matter with bank but the request was declined on the ground that OP-1 will pay the amount to service centre. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the Written Statement have been denied.  The complainant has annexed the job-card retail invoice dated 31/10/2013, registration certificate of the insured vehicle, taxi badge dated 26/02/2013, permit of contract carriage, certificate of 3^rd party technical inspection of CNG vehicle dated 12/04/2012, portable fire Extinguisher receipt, Manual tax collection receipt issued by Transport Department, certificate of verification, certificate of fitness along with the rejoinder.
18. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed.
19. OP-1 has got examined Sh. Pratap Singh, the Administrative Officer of National Insurance Co. Ltd. he has deposed on oath the content of their written statement and has got exhibited Claim Intimation letter for a sum of Rs.3,16,660/- as Ex. R-1, copy of Motor Survey Report as Ex-R-2, list of documents required for settlement of claim as Ex.R-3, copy of all three reminders and copy of letter dated 31/03/2014 as Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-5 respectively, letter mailed by complainant as well as manager of service centre and the letter issued by insurance company to the concerned authority with all details as Ex.R-6, Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8, copy of emails dated 09/10/2017 and 10/10/2017 as Ex.R-9, letter dated 09/11/2017 as Ex.R-10, emails dated 02/11/2017 and 14/12/2017 as Ex.R-11 and Ex.R-12, email dated 15/12/2017 as Ex.R-13, letter dated 26/12/2017 as Ex.R-14, emails dated 26/12/2017 and 27/12/2017 and settlement of claim  as Ex.R-15,      Ex-16 and Ex.R-17 respectively.
20. We have heard the arguments of the complainant, appearing in person and Ld. Counsel for OP-1. We have also perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that OP-1 paid a sum of  Rs. 1,18,000/- and did not pay Rs. 1,10,000/- to his bank as per his request.  If we look at the Motor Survey Report dated 18/11/2013, where the net loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs. 1,30,000/-[Rs. 1,34,483/- minus Rs. 4,483/-(salvage)] ,which has not been disputed by  the complainant. As per email dated 10/01/2014, the complainant was requested to submit necessary documents, which the complainant failed to, despite several reminders. Twice the claim was reopened upon the representation of the complainant.
21. The complainant in a letter dated 09/11/2017 has also stated that his claim was closed on account of non submission of the full payment receipt, thus, the complainant has admitted that he had failed to submit the required documents to OP-1 for processing the claim. In the absence of the bill of repairs, the only document to be relied upon is the surveyor report. When the complainant himself has failed to supply the documents, he cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
22. Ultimately, vide letter dated 26/12/2017, the complainant was informed that the competent authority had provided special relaxation regarding non submission of receipt from the repairer, non spot/ no FIR and DL not endorsed for badge number and approved the claim for Rs. 96,630/- (75% of Rs. 1,30,000/-) in response to the said letter, the complainant vide email dated 26/12/2017, requested the OP that his claim may be settled as Rs.1,21,034.70 (90 % of Rs. 1,34,483/-) and same may be paid to M/s Marketing Times (Workshop) (OP-2). If we look at email dated 27/12/2017 (Ex.R-16), where ,the OP has revised calculation of settlement of claim after discussing with the competent authority which is as follows:
    1. ssessment as per surveyor report - Rs. 1,35,483/-

Less – 10% non standard basis- Rs.    13,548/-

                                                            Rs. 1,21,935/-

    Less salvage                                  - Rs.     3,435/-

    Less policy excess                        -     Rs.      500/-

  Rs. 1,18,000/-

23. Further, in the above mentioned mail, the OP-1 has stated that as per the request of the complainant, the competent authority has agreed to settle the claim for Rs. 1,18,000/- and sought the consent letter along with NEFT form duly filled signed stamped by the complainant and workshop. The complainant was also asked to provide the bank details, PAN no., GST No. of the dealer with name and address as well as KYC details of the complainant. A letter dated 27/12/2017(Ex.R-17) bearing subject as “settlement”, the complainant has requested the OP-1 to transfer Rs.1,18,000/- to the Marketing Times Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), which has been duly complied by OP-1.
24. As far as the allegation of the complainant that,OP-1 did not accede to his request to remit Rs. 1,10,000/- to his bank is concerned, we do not find any merit. The claim was for repairs and OP-1 in no way is liable to pay to the bank from where the insured vehicle was financed.
25. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)               Member

 

                            

                                   (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                                            President