Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/171/2023

SALMAN SHEKH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/171/2023
Date of Institution	:	05/04/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2024

Salman Shekh son of Late Sh. Tiskin Ahmed, aged about 36 years, r/o H. No. 4389, Mauli Complex, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 57-58-59, 4th Floor, Sector 17- A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP (through VC)

 

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Salman Shekh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that complainant is the registered owner of a Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.HR-68A-9016 (hereinafter referred to as “subject vehicle”), which was got insured by him from the OP vide policy (Annexure C-2) valid w.e.f. 30.9.2021 to 29.9.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”) on payment of premium of ₹11,500/-.  On 10.8.2023, when the brother of the complainant namely Rahis was driving the subject vehicle and reached near village Dhand, Pehowa, due to sudden appearance of a stray animal in front of the subject vehicle, it met with an accident, as a result of which it turned turtle/toppled and was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the police in pursuance to which GDD No.19 dated 11.8.2022 (Annexure C-4) was recorded with the police and due information with regard to the accident was also given to the OP who asked the complainant to avail service of M/s Manu Rana Recovery Service for towing the subject vehicle. Accordingly, after availing the services of aforesaid recovery service on payment of ₹5,000/- vide bill dated 11.8.2022 (Annexure C-5), the subject vehicle was towed from Pehowa and was taken to M/s Rai Auto Care, Motor Market, Manimajra i.e. the repairer. Thereafter the OP deputed surveyor for the assessment of loss and the subject vehicle was inspected by the surveyor who assessed the loss. The aforesaid repairer had raised total bill of ₹2,00,159/- (Annexure C-6 Colly.). Though the surveyor had submitted report to the OP, but, the OP did not share the same with the complainant. The surveyor tried to obtain the signatures of the complainant on blank satisfaction voucher without disclosing the settlement amount for which the complainant denied.  However, instead of paying total amount of repair charges of ₹2,00,159/-, OP had only transferred an amount of ₹38,463/- in the account of the complainant without any intimation to him.  The complainant resisted the said amount and filed a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman and vide order dated 4.1.2023 (Annexure C-7), Insurance Ombudsman directed the OP to reassess the claim on obtaining supplementary estimate and bill of accidental vehicle.  Even after submission of the bill by the complainant with the OP, only an amount of ₹8,092/- was released by the OP in the account of the complainant on 3.3.2023 as per payment proof (Annexure C-8).  In this manner, OP has released total amount of ₹46,555/- to the complainant despite of the fact that the repair bill was raised by the repairer to the tune of ₹2,00,159/-.  The complainant again raised objection vide letter dated 7.3.2023 (Annexure C-9) with the OP, but, the OP has failed to release the full amount in favour of the complainant.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the OP has already finally settled claim of the complainant after taking into consideration the order passed by the Ombudsman. On merits, admitted that the subject vehicle was insured with the OP in pursuance to the report submitted by the surveyor who assessed the loss by taking into consideration the rubber and metal parts used in the repair of the subject vehicle and whatever amount surveyor has assessed, same has already been paid to the complainant.  It is also denied that the complainant has submitted bills to the tune of ₹2,00,159/-.  Further, facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. Consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Complainant chose not to file the rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of subject vehicle, as is also evident from the copy of its registration certificate (Annexure C-1) and the same was got insured by the complainant from the OP vide subject policy w.e.f. 30.9.2021 to 29.9.2022 (Annexure C-2), and at the relevant time, the subject vehicle was being driven by Rahis, who was also possessing a valid driving licence (Annexure C-3) at that time and on the relevant date, time and place the subject vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged, as is also evident from the GDD (Annexure C-4), and due intimation qua the accident was given to the OP and thereafter subject vehicle was taken to the repairer on payment of ₹5,000/- as towing charges and the OP has only released an amount of ₹38,463 + ₹8,092 = ₹46,555/-, out of total amount of ₹2,00,159/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP is unjustified in not settling the claim of the complainant in totality, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OP/insurer is justified in partially allowing the claim of complainant and the instant consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. As per the case of the complainant, he had spent an amount of ₹2,00,159/- for repair of the subject vehicle.  On the other hand, a per the defence of the OP, whatever amount has been assessed by the surveyor towards repair of the subject vehicle, same has been paid to the complainant.
   3. Perusal of tax invoice (Annexure C-6 colly.) clearly indicates that complainant had tendered two invoices of ₹67,331.96 and ₹52,528.62 = ₹1,19,860.58, being the cost of repaired parts and in addition to the said bill has further tendered two bills issued by Gurmeet Auto Works, Manimajra to the tune of ₹4,800/- and ₹75,500/-. On the other hand, surveyor has considered both the invoices (Annexure C-6 colly.) and has specifically mentioned in the survey report that the complainant has added the cost of the parts which were not damaged in the said accident by making reference of the same.
   4. The learned counsel for complainant, at the time of arguments, conceded that in case cost of aforesaid parts, which comes to ₹32,379/- is deducted from total cost of invoices (Annexure C-6 colly.), balance comes to ₹1,19,860 – ₹32,379 = ₹87,481/- and even the said amount has not been considered by the surveyor while assessing the loss.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has contended that even the rubber parts, for which the insured is only entitled to the extent of 50% of the cost, an amount of ₹12,232.50 was rightly assessed by the surveyor and the said amount is liable to be deducted.
   5. No doubt, cost of rubber parts is to be considered as per India Motor Tariff and 50% depreciation has rightly been assessed by the surveyor, which comes to ₹12,232.50. In this manner an amount of ₹12,232.50 is to be deducted from aforesaid total value and after deduction of the same, balance amount comes to ₹87,481 – 12,232 = ₹75,249/-.  If the repair/labour charges assessed by the surveyor is to be taken into consideration, OP is liable to pay the same which comes to ₹22,435/-.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for total amount of ₹75,249 + ₹22,435 = ₹97,684/-, out of which ₹46,555/- has already been paid by the OP and the complainant is still entitled to an amount of ₹97,684 – 46,555 = ₹51,129/- from the OP.  As a result, it is safe to hold that act of non-payment of the aforesaid amount by the OP to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and the OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹51,129/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 3.3.2023 (i.e. the date when partial claim was released) onwards.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/03/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member