DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/437

Date of Institution   : 18.06.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 04.07.2022

Mr. Ripudaman Singh son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh resident of Village Lopoke, District Amritsar.      

                …Complainant Versus

1.National Insurance Company Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer through its Branch Office at Batala Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.

2.Novelty Hyundai, 16, Court Road, Amritsar through its Managing Director/Principle Officer. 

               …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Mrs. Neena Kapoor Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Mohan Arora Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against National Insurance Company Limited & others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got insurance for his vehicle HYUNDAI CRETA bearing registration No. PB02DG-1708 from the opposite party No. 1 covering the risk period from 16.6.2017 to 15.6.2018. It is alleged that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 16.5.2018 and the said vehicle was taken to authorized service centre of the Hyundai Vehicles i.e. the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 was immediately informed and they deputed their surveyor at opposite party No. 2 on the said date to assess the loss to the vehicle. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 charged Rs. 7,835/- from the complainant without issuing any proper bill which is against the spirit of insurance cover note as no conditions were conveyed to the complainant by the opposite parties. However, the cover note issued to the complainant on Zero Depreciation basis and premium has been charged according to the same. Despite repeated requests of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 did not make the full claim and further harassing the complainant and withheld the vehicle of the complainant for a long period which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay the amount of Rs. 7,835/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the realization. 

ii) To pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses.    

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of complainant has not come with clean hands, act and conduct etc. On merits, it is alleged that the case of the insured has been assessed for loss and found that the unknown repairing charges, which are not demanded in Estimate Provided at the time of survey nor corroborate with the cause of loss as mentioned in the claim Form have been done by the opposite party No. 2 and which are not to be paid by Insurance Company. On assessment by the independent Surveyor it was found that the cause of loss was right side Rear Damage Rear Door and QT Panel and Rear Bumper Damage as per Job Card/Repair Order of opposite party No. 2 itself and also the Motor Insurance Claim Form filled by complainant/insured in which he has specifically mentioned that Crane was coming from other side hit into my car from right side and the survey on 18.5.2018 the photographs taken by the Surveyor makes it crystal clear that car was only damaged from right side and from the rear side. The repair charges which are not on account of accidental loss are not payable. The repair of dicky is not payable in the present claim as it was not cause of loss and the repair charges have already been approved only the dicky repair charges have been demanded by claimant in the present claim which is not payable as it is not related with cause of loss. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 has already approved the claim after appointment of Surveyor and on the basis of estimate given and nothing has been withheld. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party No. 1 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. The opposite party No. 2 filed written reply by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, no cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 etc. On merits, it is admitted that damaged car of the complainant was brought to service centre of the opposite party No. 2 for its repair and accordingly job card was issued in favour of Gurmukh Singh father of the complainant who had brought the car to the service centre and informed that the car was insured with the opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, as per issuance of job card the car of the complainant repaired and invoice dated 26.5.2018 of Rs. 24,144/- was issued in the name of the complainant as well as opposite party No. 1. It is admitted that an amount of Rs. 7,835/- was received from the complainant but it is denied that the opposite party No. 2 charged such amount without issuing of any bill to the complainant. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 had released the amount of Rs. 16,409/- out of the total invoice and as such balance amount was to be paid by the complainant. The non-settling of the full claim dispute is in between the complainant and opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 has charged the balance invoice amount from the complainant and after receiving the full repair amount, the car was duly handed over to the complainant. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party No. 2 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

5. In support of his case the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint has filed his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 at the time of filing the written version filed affidavit of Dheeraj Seth Divisional Manager alongwith documents Ex.O.P1/1 to O.P1/7 and opposite party No. 2 filed affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria Accounts Manager Ex.O.P2/1 alongwith documents Ex.O.P2/2 to Ex.O.P2/6. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.  

8. It is not disputed between the parties that the complainant got insurance for his vehicle HYUNDAI CRETA bearing Registration No. PB02DG-1708 from the opposite party No. 1 covering the risk period from 16.6.2017 to 15.6.2018 Ex.C-3. It is also not disputed between the parties that the above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 16.5.2018. It is further not disputed between the parties that the above said vehicle of the complainant was taken to authorized service centre of the Hyundai Vehicles i.e. the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 was immediately informed by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party No. 2 has charged Rs. 7,835/- i.e. Ex.C-2 from the complainant as the opposite party No. 1 has paid only Rs. 16,409/- to the opposite party No. 2 out of the total invoice i.e. Rs. 24,144/- i.e. Ex.C-4 & Ex.O.P2/4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also argued that no conditions were conveyed to the complainant by the opposite parties and the cover note issued to the complainant on Zero Depreciation basis and premium has been charged according to the same. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that despite repeated requests of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 has failed to make the full claim of the above said vehicle.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that that the case of the insured has been assessed for loss and found some unknown repairing charges, which are not payable. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 also argued that on assessment by the independent Surveyor it was found that the cause of loss was right side Rear Damage Rear Door and QT Panel and Rear Bumper Damage as per Job Card/Repair Order of opposite party No. 2 Ex.O.P1/16 and from the photographs taken by the Surveyor makes it crystal clear that car was only damaged from right side and from the rear side, so the repair charges which are not on account of accidental loss are not payable. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 that the Insurance Company has already approved the claim after appointment of Surveyor and on the basis of estimate given and nothing has been withheld. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that the non-settling of full claim dispute is in between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 has charged the balance invoice amount from the complainant i.e. Rs. 7,835/- i.e. Ex.O.P2/5 and after receiving the full repair amount, the car was duly handed over to the complainant. From the perusal of record it is proved that the complainant has spent Rs. 24,144/- i.e. Ex.C-4 on the repair of above said vehicle which is damaged in an accident on 16.5.2018 and the same was insured at that time with the opposite party No. 1 and this fact proved from Insurance Policy i.e. Ex.C-3. It is admitted by the opposite party No. 1 that they have paid only Rs. 16,409/- out of Rs. 24,144/- to the opposite party No. 2 against the above said repair and did not pay Rs. 7,835/-. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from the authorized service centre. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India IV (2009) CPJ 46 in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pradeep Kumar  held that;-

“Insurance Act, 1938 Section 64UM (2) Insurance - Assessment of loss- Pre-requisite for settlement of claim- Surveyor's report not last and final word. It may be basis for settlement of claim but neither binding upon insurer nor insured. Complainant's claim accepted by Consumer Fora as duly supported by original vouchers, bills and receipts. No interference required in appeal”

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No. 1 has bound to pay the full claim amount of the repair of the above said vehicle as per invoice  dated 26.5.2018 Ex.C-4.

10. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay remaining claim amount of Rs. 7,835/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. 

 

File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       4th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member