Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/17/2019

Manjeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

vikram dhanda

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 17 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 23.01.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 20.12.2023

 

Manjeet son of Sh. Umed Singh R/o village Bidhwan, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Bhiwani, through  Branch Manager.

 

2. Manager, Mohini Automobiles, Siwani Road, Tosham, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Vikram Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1 (MoA filed today).

OP No.2 exparte vide order dated 24.03.2023.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that complainant was owner of a car Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R LXi bearing regn. No.HR-61C-9941, Model 2016 and the car was insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.35101031176340282131 for a period from 10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018. It is alleged that on 02.06.2018 at about 7-8:00 a.m., the car met with an accident due to burst of front left side tyre, car turned turtle near road while coming from Gurugram to village Bidhwan in the area of village Kalali.  Car was damaged and intimation qua the accident was given to OP No.1. The car was repaired from OP No.2 and Rs.59,672/- incurred on its repair. Complainant submitted claim with OP No.1, Rs.34115/- was paid to the complainant on 25.10.2018. Thus complainant has submitted that Rs.25,557/- is  still unpaid by the OP insurance company despite the fact that the vehicle was fully insured with OP insurance company.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment, as such, sought directions against the OP to pay Rs.25,557/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @24% per annum, further to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi & cause of action and suppression of material facts by complainant. On merits, it is submitted that on receipt of intimation about the accident, answering OP deputed surveyor Sh. Ravinder Singh Yadav for survey and assessment of loss to the vehicle. The surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.34,165/-.  After going through the report, it was found that a CNG was fitted in the car in question but the same was not covered under the insurance policy so a letter was sent to the complainant on 09.08.2018 for comments of complainant and for processing of the claim. However, no reply was sent on behalf of complainant despite reminder dated 11.09.2018 whereby complainant was apprised in case of no reply, claim would be settled on non-standard basis. As such, after deducting Rs.500/- from the assessed amount, Rs.34115/- was paid in the bank account of complainant.  As such, Op No.1 has alleged that there is no deficiency in service on its       part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 filed its written version admitting that the vehicle  bearing No.HR61C/9941 of complainant on 06.06.2018 was brought to their service center for accidental repair under insurance cover and after completing surveyor’s formalities, it was repaired and cost came to Rs.53,042/- vie bill No.14265.  However, some repair work, to the extent of Rs.6630/-, was got done by complainant out of insurance coverage.  Both the aforesaid bills have been annexed with this reply.

4.                 Complainant in his evidence produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith document Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 and closed the same.

5.                 On the other side, affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 produced on behalf of OP No.1 and closed the evidence.

6.                 Later on, OP No.2 did not appear before the Commission nor he tendered any document. As such, he was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 24.03.2023.

7.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 It is admitted case of complainant that he has received a sum of Rs.34,115/- from the OP insurance company.  The grievance of complainant is that despite incurring of Rs.59,672/- on repairs of the vehicle, the OP No.1 insurance company has paid less amount to him. In order to prove the repairs expenses, complainant has placed on record bills Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3 for Rs.59,672/-.  The defence of OP through letter dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure R-4) is that CNG was fitted in the car which is not covered in insurance policy. Ld. counsel for complainant to this effect has argued that in the surveyor’s report (Annexure R-2), wherein it is clearly mentioned that R.C. compared with original and found in order. Fuel used: Petrol, CNG.  This endorsement has also been seen on the photocopy of R.C of the vehicle placed on file on behalf of complainant.  In this way, it emerges that the vehicle was authorized to drive on CNG fuel. Thus the payment of less amount by OP insurance company was in arbitrary manner and illegal one.  The OP No.2 workshop has averred in its written statement that Rs.53,042/- + Rs.6630/- were incurred by complainant on repairs of the vehicle. However, Rs.6630/- were not covered under insurance policy being incurred on Gaskit and Ring set.

9.                 From written statement of OP No.2 and repair bills placed on record by complainant, it is clear that complainant has incurred Rs.53,042/- on repair of the vehicle besides expenses on gaskit etc.  Thus we assess that complainant has incurred Rs.53,042/- on repairs of the vehicle whereas OP No.1 has only paid Rs.34,115/- to the complainant. Accordingly, complainant is entitled to Rs.18,927/- from OP insurance company.

10.               In totality of the facts & circumstances of this case, we have come to the conclusion that the OP insurance company has wrongly and illegally paid less claim amount  to the complainant which definitely caused him monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions with 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.18,927/- (Rs. Eighteen thousand nine hundred twenty seven) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of OP.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP No.1 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:20.12.2023.