Delhi

East Delhi

CC/732/2015

SHEEZA ZAIDI - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

              CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.732/2015
 

Dr. Sheeza Zaidi

D/o Dr. S.A.H. Zaidi

6-C Block-XI, Pocket-B

Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi-110052

Complainant

Vs

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited

Through its Divisional Manager

1^st Floor, Scope Minar Core I

Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi-110092

 

2. Kumar Automobiles/Mohan car AC service

Through Mr. Tarun Kumar

Prince Road,Model Town-I, Delhi-110009                               

Opposite Parties

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 23/09/2015

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 05/01/2016

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant is the owner of Vehicle No. HR 26 K 6089 which was insured with the respondent No.1 vide policy No. 272001/31/2011/49447, the IDV value was only Rs. 20,000/-. The car was damaged due to fall of a tree in the Delhi University Area resulting in extensive damage to the two doors and roof of the car. The intimation was given to the Respondent No.1. They appointed the surveyor and he estimated in conjunction with Respondent No.2, the repair value at Rs.23,600/- and accordingly recommended repairs.  When the IDV value was only Rs.20,000/-, the car should have been declared as a case of “Total Loss”. No consent of the complainant was even sought for sending it for repairs. The surveyor and the Respondent No.1 insisted upon the complainant to sign a blank Discharge Voucher without filing the amount therein. The complainant has paid an amount Rs.23,600/- to the Respondent No.2 for the repairs. The Respondent No.1 was only offering an amount of Rs.14,250/-. Despite protracted correspondence and information under the RTI. The respondent has not made the payment to the complainant. The complainant has prayed for directing the respondent to make the payment of Rs. 23,600/- alongwith the 24% interest and direction to the Respondent No.2 for completing the repair work or the payment of Rs.13,000/- in lieu thereof, and Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

            Notice were issued to the respondents, they were sufficiently served. Only Respondent No.2 filed an application wherein he has stated that he carried out the repair and agreed to do the repair to the effected parts of the car. No evidence has been filed by the respondent. The affidavit filed by the complainant is uncontroverted on record.

            Heard and perused the documents on record.

            The policy of insurance is not deposited. The letter of the insurance company dated 17/02/2012 indicate that the claim was assessed at Rs.14,250/- and asking the complainant to submit the documents to the surveyor and thereafter only the amount shall be disbursed. A blank Discharge Voucher is also filed. This has been the contention of the complainant that the IDV value of the vehicle on the date of the accident was only Rs.20,000/-, the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.23,600/- and the vehicle was sent for repair to the Respondent No.2 without obtaining the consent of the complainant. This part has also not been denied by the Respondent No.2 that the complainant did not pay Rs.23,600/- for the repair of this vehicle.  The estimate of Rs.75,000/-submitted by the Respondent No.2 is admitted to the Respondent No.2 that certain other parts also affected. All this goes to show that there was nexus between the insurance company including the surveyor and the garage of the Respondent No.2. It is strange that the vehicle insured for the amount of Rs.20,000/- only was allowed and sent for repair when the primary estimate given by the surveyor was Rs.23,600/-. It is a settled law that where the damage to the insured vehicle is more than 75% of the IDV value that the vehicle is to be declared total loss and the IDV value amount is to be reimbursed to the insured. The respondent have failed to justify the action of sending this vehicle for repair when the primary estimate was more than the IDV value and the respondent No.2 has given the total estimate of Rs.75,000/-. Secondly, the demand of blank discharge voucher further at to our belief that the surveyor along with the Respondent No.2 are indulging into illegal activity and thereby causing loss to the insurance company to the complainant who was otherwise entitled for the loss. This fact is not been denied that the complainant has not paid Rs.23,600/- to the Respondent No.2. Normally, payment made by the complainant should be paid by the respondent No.1 in total but cannot ignore this fact that IDV value of this vehicle was only Rs.20,000/-. The respondent No.1 cannot be burdened more than the value declared at the time of the insurance and the same is binding on both the parties.

            Respondent No.2 has received the total amount of Rs.23,600/- from the complainant but failed to carry out the complete repair. The respondent No.2 is directed to carry out the repair of the vehicle and make it run without any problem and defect. He shall not be entitled for any amount what so ever since the complainant has already paid as per the surveyor report. The Respondent No.1 is directed to reimburse the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- together with 9% interest thereon from the date of payment made by the complainant and till it is finally reimbursed to the complainant. We, further, award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which shall be paid by the respondent No.1 on account of continued harassment, pain, agony and suffering. If this amount not paid within 45 days from the date of this judgment complainant shall be entitled to 9% interest thereon till it is finally paid.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT