Delhi

North East

CC/465/2014

Vinay Kr. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Life Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.465/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma, R/o C8/273, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.             3.	Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Director Plot No. 60, Phase 3, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110020   Giriraj Motors (Service Centre) Through its Proprietor A Division of J.S.B Auto Pvt. Ltd., Opposite JMD Pacific Square, Near 32nd Milestone, Chander Nagar, Sector 15, Part II Gurgaon 122001   M/s Ashwani Thapar And Sons (Surveyor) (Deleted vide order dated 03.12.2014) 101, 2nd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi 110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

22.11.2014 06.03.2023 15.06.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer  protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Skoda Car vide registration no. DL8CNA7869 manufactured in 2012. Total cost of the said vehicle was Rs. 9,06,208/- and Complainant made a down payment of Rs. 4,01,537/-. The remaining payment was financed by ICICI Bank. The complainant paid the EMIs of Rs. 14,235/- regularly from 15.03.2012 to 15.02.2016. Complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 6,83,280/- towards the reimbursement of loan amount. The said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No. 1 and period of insurance was 03.03.2013 to midnight 02.03.2014. The vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident at mid night on 18.02.2014 while going to Gurgaon. The complainant immediately contacted the agent of the Opposite Party No. 1 and as per his advice; the complainant took his vehicle to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 19.02.2014. The Complainant intimated the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 about the accident. The Opposite Party No. 2 ensured the Complainant that his vehicle would be repaired within 10 days and expenses shall be covered under insurance policy. The Complainant provided all necessary documents to the Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant visited the Opposite Party No. 2 after 10 days and he found that his vehicle had not been repaired. After seeking explanation, it was stated that no approval had been received from the Opposite Party No. 1. Initially, Opposite Party no. 2 gave an estimate of Rs. 2,80,000/- to repair the said vehicle but later on the bill was raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 to Rs. 5,80,000/-.The Opposite Party No. 2 failed to provide details of the estimated bill but Complainant somehow was able to find the estimated bill of repair which was hypothetical in nature. Despite having insurance claim entitlement of Rs. 7,10,000/- the vehicle of the Complainant was not repaired despite so many visits to the Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant made several requested over the mobile phone and through e-mail but Opposite Parties did not repair the vehicle of the Complainant. The insurance of the vehicle was going to expire on 02.03.2014 and as per request of Opposite Party no. 1 the Complainant was made to renew his policy of insurance with the Opposite Party No.1. Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 24752.14/- towards the premium. It is alleged that some parts of his vehicle were also removed when it was in the workshop. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay jointly and severally of Rs. 7,10,000/- towards insured claim along with interest  12 % from 19.02.2014 till realisation, Rs. 24,752/- towards premium paid for renewal of policy, Rs. 3,41,640/- towards the balance loan amount, Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that after intimation of loss to vehicle Opposite Party No. 1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. As per report submitted by the surveyor the said vehicle was quite repairable. It is stated that the Complainant was requested to give his consent to M/s Giriraj Motors, Gurgaon to enable them to start repair. It is stated that the Opposite party No. 1 offered to settle the claim of the Complainant on Net Salvage Basis offering a settlement amount of Rs. 6,45,000/-  towards full and final settlement of his claim. In para no. 10 of the reply it is stated that it is liable to indemnify the loss to the Complainant as per the terms and condition of insurance policy. It is stated that it is not liable to pay any amount of insurance premium i.e. 24,752/-. It is also stated it is not liable to pay any damages on account of mental harassment and litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant never gave approval for getting his vehicle repaired. It is stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 has also not given any approval for making the repair of the vehicle. It has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has stated that Complainant has no right or claim against it.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri. Abhishek Bhardwaj, posted as Astt. Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.
7. However, after filing the written statement, Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2015.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the Complainant has met with an accident and at the time of the accident the vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that despite his various requests his vehicle was not got repaired. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant did not give consent for repairing the vehicle. However, no cogent evidence has been led by the Opposite Parties to show that the Complainant was asked to give consent and the Complainant has denied for the same. Therefore, this plea of the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted. Further, the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that it has offered Rs. 6,45,000/- to the Complainant as full and final settlement. In this regard, Opposite Party No. 1 has written letter dated 17.07.2014, 28.07.2014 and 12.08.2014. The Complainant has not given any explanation as to why he did not accept the offer. It is also not denied by the Complainant that this settlement offer was made to him by the Opposite Party No. 1.
9. The IDV Value of the vehicle was Rs. 7,10,000/-. The Opposite Party No. 1 has offered an amount of Rs. 6,45,000/- as per the terms and condition of the policy. The Complainant did not lead any evidence as to how he was entitled for Rs. 7,10,0000/- instead of Rs. 6,45,000/-. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,45,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
10. The Complainant has not led any cogent evidence as to why he paid premium of Rs. 24,752/- after the accident of the car. He has also not led any evidence as to how he is entitled for the huge amount of compensation as claimed by him. Therefore, the said prayer of the Complainant is declined. The salvage of the car shall be dead by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the manner it likes.  
11.  Order announced on 15.06.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)