Punjab

Sangrur

CC/11/2018

Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Anjana Jindal

05 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                     

                                                Complaint No.    11

                                                Instituted on:      05.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       05.07.2018

 

Rajiv Kumar Bansal aged 58 years son of Sh. Naranjan Dass Bansal C/o Mr. Ashe Kumar Goyal, Advocate, Prem Basti, Street No.1, Kothi No.3, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. B.O. Outside Dhuri Gate, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Ms.Anjana Jindal, Adv.

For OP                      :               Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajiv Kumar Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his Honda city car bearing registration number HR-25-B-4158 from the OP for the period from 30.5.2017 to 29.5.2018 by paying the requisite premium.  It is further averred that the car in question was insured after inspecting the same by the agent of the OP and accordingly issued insurance policy number 404200/31/17/6100000413.  The case of the complainant is that the car in question met with an accident in the month of September, 2017 while the complainant was going to Chandigarh and as such, the front bumper, rear bumper, LID compartment trunk, rear lamp unit and many other parts were damaged, however, no FIR was got lodged.  Further case of the complainant is that on 16.9.2017 the said vehicle was transported to workshop of M/s. Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur and the Op was conveyed about the same.  The OP accordingly appointed Shri Charanjit Singh from Ludhiana as surveyor to assess the loss, who also took photographs etc. The repairer prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.72,746/-  and further estimate was revised to Rs.68,884/- and the final bill was issued to the tune of Rs.61,842/-, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP paid only an amount of Rs.26,799/- whereby withheld an amount of Rs.35043/-.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.35,043/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits,  it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP. It is stated further that the estimate was not prepared with the consultation of the surveyor as alleged. The OP is not liable to pay the amount of parts which were not damaged in the said accident. Further it is stated that there was gap between the earlier insurance period and the renewal of the insurance period. Some parts were defective before getting the insurance and the same cannot be replaced and the complainant has also got replaced said parts, for which the OP is not liable to pay.  Further it is stated that as per the pre inspection report, rear bumper was found scratched and now in the current accident, it was found broken, hence its replacement was allowed after deducting 40% on schedule paint charges. Similarly RH quarter panel was found mentioned as scratched but not it was found freshly dented, hence the repair was allowed after deducting 40% on paint charges, as such, it is stated that the amount of Rs.26,799/- has rightly been allowed. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special cost.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/10 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP getting insured his car in question for the period from 30.5.2017 to 29.5.2018, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-6 by paying the requisite premium.  It is further not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident in the month of September, 2017, of which information was given to the OP and the car was brought to the workshop of the repairer i.e. M/s. Lally Motors, Sangrur  (who is the authorised service centre of Honda company), where the complainant spent an amount of Rs.61,842/- as is evident from the copy of the invoice on record as Ex.C-4. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP has illegally and wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.35043/- on account of flimsy grounds saying that some parts of the car had already been damaged, as such the amount of Rs.35043/- were deducted, whereas the car in question was got repaired from the authorised service centre of the Honda company (manufacturer).  It is settled law that if the accidental vehicle is got repaired from the authorised service centre, then the insurance company is liable to pay the full amount as per the invoice.  The OP has though produced the affidavit of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal and Shri Charanjit Singh, surveyors on record to corroborate their contention that there were scratched on LH quarter and the same were existing at the time of inspection of the vehicle (before insurance of the car in question), but now in the accident, the said parts have broken and as such, the OP cannot take the shelter of such excuses to withheld the rightful claim of the complainant.       

 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.35,043/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.01.2018 till realisation in full. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order. 

 

 

7.              A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                                July 5, 2018.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

 

                                                   (Sarita Garg)

                                                        Member

 

                                       

                                             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                       Member