Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/116

Neetu Chabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

19 May 2015

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

 

Complaint No. :      116

Date of Institution:  2.09.2014

Date of Decision :   19.05.2015

 

 

Neetu Chabra w/o Davinder Singh r/o # 2/94 Nandeyana Gate, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                                           

 

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Baba Farid Market, Shop No. 69,70, Opposite Kotwali, Faridkot through Incharge.

2. The New India Assurance Company Bldg, 87 M G Road, Fort, Mumbai 40001 through M D.

                             .....Opposite Parties (Ops)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(A K Mehta, President)

                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against The New India Assurance Company Ltd etc/OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of claim amount worth Rs 4,01,834/- pertaining to Insurance Policy No. 3607013111000005621 dated 12.01.2012 with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 27,000/-as toeing charges besides litigation expenses.

2                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant being owner of vehicle TATA 4018 bearing registration no. PB-04-R-9661got insured her vehicle car from Ops vide insurance policy valid from 12.01.2012 to 11.01.2013 after paying premium of Rs 40,927/- to Ops; that  said vehicle met with an accident near Makhal Toll Tax Plaza  Padhanpur Kandla  Highway on 15.07.2012 and vehicle was badly damaged; that driver of the vehicle informed complainant about the accident over telephone and complainant in turn informed the Ops immediately; that Surveyor of the Ops Sh Piksan Modi of Mehsona visited the spot on 16.07.2012 and took photographs of the damaged vehicle and thereafter said Surveyor told complainant to get repaired the said vehicle and said vehicle was brought to Nayyar Motors Kotkapura to get the vehicle repaired; that on 3.08.2012, Nayyer Motors after checking the said vehicle, gave report that the damaged part cannot be repaired due to twisting and is required to be replaced and thereafter prepared an estimate and complainant informed Ops and Ops again sent a Surveyor namely Vinod Kumar and Associates of Ludhiana and after checking the said vehicle and estimate bill, the Ops allowed complainant to get replaced the damaged part of the vehicle and thereafter damaged part was replaced and complainant had to incur expenses of Rs 4,01,834/- for repair and replacement of damaged parts and thereafter, complainant submitted all the bills to the Ops; that toeing charges were paid by the complainant whereas Ops assured complainant that toeing charges were to be paid by the Ops; that complainant submitted the claim alongwith bills and other required documents as demanded by the Ops and in the month of October 2012, Ops again sent a Surveyor and inspected the vehicle that the damaged part of the said vehicle has been repaired/replaced and confirmed about the repaired/replaced damaged part of the insured vehicle and thereafter, complainant approached Ops many times to give claim amount but Ops kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and then refused to pay the claim without assigning any reason; that there is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which she has prayed for directions to Ops to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation and for cost of litigation besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.09.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of complainant and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and lengthy procedure of law of evidence is required to be adopted in deciding the case and matter is required to be relegated to the Civil Court; that complainant is not a consumer of Ops and has no right to file the present complaint; that alleged vehicle was never damaged nor any loss worth Rs 4,01,834/-was caused and soon after the information supplied by the insured, Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs 1,00,136/- including the salvage value of  Rs 2,336/- and the loss to be assessed in this case cannot exceed Rs 1,00,136/- i.e loss assessed by the Surveyor; that complainant is guilty of non cooperation as insurance is a bilateral contract and both the parties to the contract are bound by its terms and conditions; that insured is bound to furnish all  the  required  documents  and  information  to the Ops; that Ops wrote several letters to the complainant on 23.11.2012, 12.12.2012,  31.12.2012 and 20.02.2013 calling upon him to complete formalities and to  furnish  documents  mentioned in those letters but the complainant never came forward to supply those documents and finally on 20.02.2013, the  claim  of  complainant    was  declared  as  ‘No  Claim” due  to  non  completion  of formalities; that present complaint is time barred.                     However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh Deen Dyal, Divisional Manager Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and OP-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                   The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant is owner of the vehicle make Tata 4018 bearing Registration No. PB04-R-9661 and she got insured the same with OP Insurance Company for the period 12.01.2012 to 11.01.2013 after paying Rs 40,927/- as premium. He further contended that vehicle in question was involved in an accident on 15.07.2012 at Kandla and driver of the vehicle immediately informed the complainant, who in turn informed the OP/Insurance Company. He contended that Surveyor of the OP/Insurance Company visited the spot on 16.07.2012 but did not prepare any estimate though Surveyor took the photographs and asked the complainant to get repaired the vehicle. He contended that complainant took the vehicle to Nayyer Motors, Kotkapura and Nayyer Motors prepared the estimate Ex C-4 for Rs 5,71,332/- and also informed the complainant that parts damaged in the accident cannot be repaired as the same has been twisted and requires to be replaced. He further contended that complainant informed the OP/Insurance Company regarding the estimate and about parts to be replaced and again a Surveyor was appointed by OP/Insurance Company and Surveyor Vinod Kumar and associates of Ludhiana checked the vehicle and estimate and then allowed the complainant to get replaced the damaged parts of the vehicle and accordingly, the damaged parts were replaced and vehicle was repaired on which complainant incurred expenses of Rs 4,01,834/-. He further contended that complainant submitted the claim case to the OP/Insurance Company but inspite of repeated requests and visits, OP/Insurance Company have not cleared the claim of the complainant. He further contended that complainant had to toe the vehicle from Kandla to Faridkot and spent Rs 27,000/-for this purpose as per bill Ex C-5 and complainant is also entitled to this amount as the same is required to be paid by the OP/Insurance Company. He contended that non clearance of the claim case of the complainant in spite of furnishing all the documents, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP/insurance company and conduct of the Ops also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and OP/Insurance Company is required to be directed to pay Rs 4,01,834/- as repair charges alongwith compensation and toeing charges as mentioned in the complaint.

9                                              Ld counsel for OP/Insurance Company contended that case of the complainant is based on false and fictitious grounds as complainant has never spent Rs 4,01,834/- on repair of the vehicle in question. He contended that after receiving the information about the accident, a Surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs 1,00,136/-including salvage value. He further contended that complainant was asked to furnish the required documents and as many letters as mentioned in the written statement were sent to complainant but complainant did not send the documents due to which reason, claim of the complainant was not decided i.e neither allowed nor repudiated and as such, complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed.

10                                            It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is owner of the vehicle in question and the same was insured with the OP/Insurance Company for the period 12.01.2012 to 11.01.2013. Complainant has proved RC of the vehicle as Ex C-2 and Insurance Certificate as Ex C-3. It is also admitted fact that vehicle in question was involved in the accident and intimation was given to the OP/Insurance Company by the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that the Surveyor visited the spot after the accident but did not prepare any estimate and rather informed the complainant for repair of the vehicle. Whereas, contention of the OP/Insurance Company is that the Surveyor prepared the estimate of the damage to the extent of Rs 1,00,136/- including salvage value. The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle was taken to Faridkot where estimate of damage was prepared and the vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs 4,01,834/- whereas contention of the OP/Insurance Company is that the OP/Insurance Company never directed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and the bills submitted by the complainant are excessive as the OP/Insurance Company never agreed for the replacement of the parts which were otherwise repairable. No document has been placed on file by the complainant to show that Surveyor directed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired nor any document hasbeen proved on file by the complainant to prove that Surveyor allowed the complainant for replacement of the parts.Otherwise also, the estimate ExC-4 for Rs5,71,332/-includes the part at Sr No.1,which is valued at Rs4,45,800/- and there is no evidence on the file that this part was not repairable and was required to be replaced.However, the actual bill shows that the same part at Sr.No.1 i.e Assy Body Shell Painted RHD and the same is valued for Rs3,05,000/-and as such, there is much difference in the price of the part in the estimate as well as in the actual bill Ex C-6.Otherwise, the case of the OP/Insurance Company is that the claim case of the complainant has not been decided so far as the same is neither allowed nor repudiated. As such, the complaint is premature.  However, the disposal of the claim case has already been delayed much as the OP/Insurance Company have not decided the claim case of the complainant though the accident relates to 15.07.2012. As such in the light of above discussion, the complaint is disposed of with observation that complainant is to submit all the required documents in his possession to the OP/Insurance Company within 15 days from today and OP/Insurance Company shall consider the documents filed by complainant and if complainant fails to furnish the documents, then, Ops shall decide the claim case of the complainant within next one month and complaint is disposed of accordingly. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 19.05.2015

                               Member            Member                  President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (A K Mehta)