Haryana

Kurukshetra

191/2018

Vishal Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint No.191 of 2018

                                                     Date of institution: 06.09.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:13.09.2019

 

1. Vishal Saini, aged 25 years, son of Shri Sheesh Ram Saini, resident of House No.481/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.                    Versus

1. National Insurance Company 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal-700071.
2. Maruti Insurance broking private Limited Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj. New Delhi-110070.
3. Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd.- Maruti Suzuki Dealer, Plot No.156-157, Industrial Area, Sector 2-136118, Kurukshetra.
4. Chamunda Roadside Assistance V.P.O Nagar, Tehsil & District Kullu (H.P.)-175131.

….Respondents.

                 Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.                                                          Ms. Neelam, Member.                                                                                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.      

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                Sh. Pitamber Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.2.   

                Opposite parties No.3 & 4 exparte.

               

ORDER

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vishal Saini against National Insurance Company and another the opposite parties.

2. It is stated in the complaint that on 25^th June 2017 the complainant purchased New Dzire Zxi from Op No.3 and that vehicle was insured with OP No.1 policy No.35101031176140341308 that is valid from 25^th June 2017 to 24^th June 2018. It is alleged that complainant paid Rs.23,508/- INR for the said policy and the said policy was purchased from Op No.1 via Op No.3. It is further alleged that on 28^th May 2018 complainant went on Manali for vacations and on 30^th May 2018 complainant meet with accident in which complainant was majorly injured and there was major damage to vehicle bearing registration No.HR0-7Y-3499. It is further alleged that the complainant called Ops No.1 and 2 dedicated customer support at 33774477 informing about the claim and asking about toeing of vehicle by recovery van. It is further alleged that they told complainant all amount will be paid by the Insurance Company and arranged a recovery van for me. While complainant was in the Lady Willingdon Hospital Manali the authorized person on behalf of National Insurance Company came and told complainant that amount that will be Rs.27000+6000/- fees for tow charges to Kurukshetra they will provide complainant bill and complainant will get the amount by insurance company initially complainant have to pay. So, complainant initially paid them amount of Rs.33,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant then paid said amount to the Op No.4 after hearing from Op No.1 and Op No.4 that (Insurance company Pays the Toe Charges) and the vehicle was brought from Manali to Kurukshetra Rs.15,000/- cash on 30^th May 2018 and 18,000/- via internet banking (on 31^st May 2018). It is further alleged that complainant submitted the toe bills to Op No.3 who conducted repair of vehicle at their address.  It is further alleged that on 30.08.2018 complainant asked the Surveyor (S.M.Sudhan contact No. 9416023160) that when complainant will get back reimbursement for the bill that was paid by complainant initially for toe from Manali to Kurukshetra but there was no reply from his side. It is further alleged that when complainant damaged repaired car completed i.e. on 4^th September 2018 Op No.1 had given complainant 1500 INR (in bill reimbursement for toe charges but the whole bill was to be paid by OP No.1) via Op No.3 even after the various request of complainant Rs.33,000/- INR was not paid to complainant. The complainant had paid charges for the reason that complainant was told that it will be paid by the National Insurance Company. It is further alleged that the whole bill amount was not paid by the National Insurance Company complainant was asked to pay for various other charges. Total charges paid by complainant are as mentioned below:-

1. Towing Charges  = Rs.33,000/- INR.
2. In reference to

Job Card No. JC18003807 = Rs.4,032/- INR

     C) In reference to                                                                                  Job card No. JC18008629 = Rs.36,876/- INR

Total charges paid by complainant Rs.36,876/- INR. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed his written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; deficiency in services; cause of action; and has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. It is submitted that the car in question was insured with the answering Op w.e.f 25.06.2017 to 24.06.2018 and the intimation regarding the accident of the car was received by the answering Op on 05.06.2018 and the claim of the complainant was processed as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It is mentioned that as per the policy of insurance, the maximum towing charges are allowed upto Rs.1,500/- and the said amount has already been settled and paid by the answering Op and as such, noting is outstanding against the answering Op. Moreover, the complainant had himself admitted in the complaint that the sum of Rs.1,500/- has been paid to him on account of towing charges. It is also mentioned that the complainant had claimed the towing charges of Rs.33,000/- which are not payable at all as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.  Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed his evidence.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW-1/A and documents Ex-R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.   Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 has closed his evidence without tendering any document.  The opposite parties No.3 & 4 did not appear and opted to proceed against ex-parte.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.                                      

6.             After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, accident took place in Manali and complainant spent towing charges of Rs.33,000/- from Manali to Kurukshetra.  Total estimate costs of repair of accident vehicle is Rs.6,36,840/- and the assessed amount is Rs.3,84453/-.  All the amount which was assessed by the surveyor is taken by the complainant.  The dispute is only regarding the towing charges.   The terms and conditions of towing charges are also not mentioned in Ex.C-1.  Ld. Counsel for Ops contended that they have given all amounts, which was assessed by the surveyor, which is accepted by the complainant.  Towing charges of Rs.1500/- was given to the complainant as mentioned in surveyor report Ex.R-4. Ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the condition regarding towing charges  which is mentioned in the second page of Ex.R-1/A i.e. “In the event of the vehicle being disabled by reason of loss or damage covered under this Policy the Company will bear the reasonable cost of protection and removal to the nearest repairer and redelivery to the insured but not exceeding in all Rs.1500/- in respect of any one accident.” Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Bharat Watch Company through its Partner versus National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No.3912/2009 decided on 12.4.2019, wherein it has been held as under:

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 23 Claim of insurance.  Non-communication of condition.  Thief committed in shop of claimant by using duplicate keys.  There was no sign of forcible entry.  Where loss or damage was caused without forcible and violent entry to premises claim could not be maintained.  The exclusionary condition in policy not communicated to claimant.  Claim was allowed by the district Forum and upheld up State Commission on said concurrent finding.  NCDRC erred in reversing decision of District Forum and State Commission.  Order set aside.”     

7.             In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant had received insured amount and towing charges of Rs.1500/- from the Ops. The complainant has actually demanding towing charges of Rs.33,000/-. The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.  These terms and conditions are not mentioned in Ex.C-1.  This  shows the deficiency in service on the part of Ops.   

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the ops to pay Rs.31,500/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.          

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 16.09.2019.                                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),               (Neelam)         

Member                                    Member.