ORDER
(Passed this on 24th April, 2017)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President
01. This is a complaint of unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties, Reliance General Insurance Company and Rushabh Motors Pvt. Ltd.
02. The complainant owns a ¨HONDA CITY¨ Sedan car of Honda Company Bearing No. MH-31-CM-9681. It was insured with the O.P.-1 ,Reliance insurance company, for the period from August 2010 to August 2011. The car met with an accident on 29/5/2011 and was sent for repairs at the workshop of O.P.-2 Rushabh Motors at Nagpur. A claim was lodged with all papers and estimate of repairs with the O.P.-1. A surveyor was appointed and survey was conducted. Report was submitted and he was informed that the surveyor has approved the repairs and replacement as per estimate. However later it was informed that unless approval from Head Office received repairs should not be undertaken. The Surveyor was pressuring him to accept the settlement of claim under Total Loss basis. But he was ready to accept it as he wanted to keep the car. He therefore asked the surveyor that the car should be repaired as per the estimate and the loss should be accordingly assessed. He even sent e-mail to to the grievance cell of the O.P.-1 but in vain. About 15 days thereafter he was suggested that the cost of replacement of two parts should be borne by him and the O.P. shall bear cost of replacement of one only part. He had already obtained estimate prepared by the O.P.-2 on 29/6/2011 and it was sent with approval by the surveyor. There was no endorsement by the surveyor till 1/7/2011 and an endorsement on the estimate for the first time was made, fraudulently by the surveyor on 1/7/2011 which were back dated endorsements to show as if the same were made on 1/6/2011 and 9/6/2011. the O.P.-2 informed him that the parts which the O.P.-1was insisting for repairs were not repairable and are required to be replaced.
03. Then he was suggested to accept the claim under Net of Salvage basis, but he refused as it was contrary to approval of repairs granted by the surveyor. After several communications the O.P.-1 on 20/6/2011 informed him that it would settle the claim on total loss basis as the estimate of repairs exceeds the IDV Rupees. 2,88,372/-. The estimate for repairs and replacement of parts prepared by the O.P.-2 was Rupees. 1,28,784/-. Thus it was false statement by the O.P.-1. The car was then repaired by the O.P.-2 and total bill was Rs. 87,660/- which were paid by him. The car was ready for delivery on 4/7/2011. The O.P.-1 was informed to take final inspection. But the surveyor refused on the ground that the claim was already rejected. The complainant then took delivery of the car and replaced parts. Ultimately on 6/7/2011 final survey was conducted. The O.P.-1 informed him that the claim was approved to the extent of Rs. 46,355/-. The O.P.-1 then submitted details of the settlement of claim to him and the amount of the approved claim. It was settled on the repair basis which was accepted by him without prejudice to his rights to claim damages and compensation for deficiency in service of the O.P.-1. The O.P.-1 was interested only in settling the claim on total loss basis and not on repairs and thereby causing unlawful loss to him. The surveyor manipulated the records and made back dated endorsements to fabricate evidence. Thus the O.P.-1 and its surveyor hatched a conspiracy to cause loss to the complainant and to acquire his car illegally. He therefore suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony and was deprived of the enjoyment of the car for considerable period. Hence he has claimed total amount Rs.14,14,640/- by way of compensation and cost on various counts.
04. The O.P.-1 has filed its written version admitted the policy of the car. It is also admitted that on being informed about accident a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. But it is denied that he was pressurised to accept the amount on total loss basis. It has denied every averment, except those which are matters of record. Specifically it is stated that the claim has been settled by paying amount towards full and final settlement of the claim. Hence, the complaint is not tenable. It is further stated there is no deficiency in service and the complainant wants to make wrongful gain of public funds. It is thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
05. The O.P.-2 in his written version to the complaint merely stated that there is no contractual relation with the complainant. It carries out repair job as per the approval of insurance company. It only gives estimate of repairs and it is
for the insurance company whether to sanction it or not. Denying its liability to pay any compensation to the complainant, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.
06. We have heard the complainant in person and perused all the documents, notes of argument and affidavit. Ld counsel for the O.P.-1 is also heard. We record our findings with reasons therefore as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
07. The complainant has supported his case with several documents. The O.P.-1, who is main contesting party has not filed any document with reply. We would like first to mention that the dispute is about reimbursement of repair expenses under the insurance policy. So essentially the dispute is with the O.P.-1, the Insurance Company. The O.P.-2 is not directly concerned with reimbursement and therefore is not a necessary party. Therefore in the complaint also no specific allegation is made against the O.P.-2.
08. The damaged car was brought to the workshop of O.P.-2 where the surveyor appointed by the O.P.-1 conducted survey on 1/6/2011. The dispute arose when the complainant was told to accept settlement of the claim on Total Loss basis to which he was not ready. The estimate prepared by the O.P.-2 was Rs. 1,28,784/-. The IDV was Rs.2,88,372/-. Actual repair bill was to Rs. 87,660/- including cost of replaced parts. This has not been specifically denied by the O.P.-1. That means there was no total loss and the claim could not have been settled on that basis. Even the estimate of repairs did not exceed IDV of the car, but the O.P.-1 in its letter dated 20/6/2011 said that estimate exceeded IDV, hence, the claim would be settled on total loss basis. To support this, the O.P.-1 has not placed any estimate. Thereafter by letter dated 30/6/2011 the O.P. assessed its liability to the tune of Rs. 48,842/- on door assembly and quarter panel assembly on repair basis as those two items, according to the O.P., were repairable. While assessing its liability, salvage Rs.1514/- was proposed to be deducted. The complainant was asked to opt for either on a repair basis or on salvage loss basis. It was further informed that in case of settlement on net of salvage basis, the liability of the O.P.-1 would be for Rs. 22,872/- after deducting policy excess. The complainant was not ready for that and he informed the
O.P.-1 accordingly. The O.P.-1 did not explain when after first survey report, the surveyor recommended for replacement of parts, how it could say the parts became repairable without further inspection and without dismantling the car. Moreover the O.P.-2 said the parts were not repairable. In this respect there were several communications between the complainant and the officials of the O.P.-1.
09. Thus it would appear that the O.P.-1 kept changing its stand in settlement of the claim. As per the circular of IRDA insurance company is under obligation to decide insurance claims within a reasonable time. The O.P.-1 as not filed assessment report of its surveyor. Therefore we are unable to know on what basis the surveyor made assessment. It appears the surveyor did not obtain any estimate from any workshop for repair of the parts. Even the O.P.-1 did not explain why it changed its giving proposal for settlement of the claim. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that the proposal made by the O.P.-1 was arbitrary.
10. The car was ultimately repaired by replacing some parts by the O.P.-2, for which bill of Rs. 87,660/- was given to
the complainant. Why the O.P.-1 was not ready to reimburse him on repair basis is inscrutable. The complainant informed the O.P.-1 that he was ready to settle his claim at Rs. 48,842/- which was admitted by it and so the O.P.-1 was requested to release the said amount, without prejudice to his rights. Thus the dispute was relegated to the question whether three parts were repairable or not, apart from compensation. The O.P.-1 then settled the claim at Rs. 46,355/- which was accepted by the complainant without prejudice to his rights to make claim for compensation for alleged deficiency in service. He even asked the O.P.-1 to furnish names of such workshops where such parts would have been repaired, but there was no response from the O.P.-1. Copies of all these e-mail communications are placed on record, which have not been specifically denied by the O.P.-1.
11. For over a month the complainant did not have a vehicle and therefore must have felt inconvenience in attending his work. He is an advocate. It is alleged that he had to hire a vehicle for which he had to spend huge amount of Rs.60,000/-. Although there is no documentary evidence in that respect, we presume that sometimes he must have
required to hire taxi. He has claimed monetary relief’s on various counts, including for loss of reputation and defamation by filing the complaint. We do not comprehend how he lost reputation in filing the complaint. Even otherwise, in absence of documentary evidence such huge amount on objective basis cannot be granted. It is not being claimed under the head of compensation. We have come to the conclusion that the complaint deserves to be allowed, against the O.P.-1. The O.P.-2 cannot be held liable to pay compensation as there is no deficiency in its service. It is also be noted that the complainant has accepted repairs expenses Rs. 46,355/- from the O.P.-1. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we grant some compensation by following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed against O.P.-1.
- The O.P.-1 Reliance General Insurance company is directed to pay a sum of RS.1,00,000/- (In words Rupees One lakh ) to the complainant by way of compensation for mental, and physical agony and cost of litigation Rs. 5000/- (In words Rupees Five Thousand only).
- The order shall be complied within 30 days by the O.P.No.-1 from receipt of copy of judgment and order.
- There is no any order against O.P.No.-2.
- Copy of judgment and order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
