Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 369
Instituted on: 14.09.2020
Decided on: 09.12.2024
Raj Kumar son of late DayaKishan resident of C-132, Prem Nagar, New Delhi, at present Village Titoli, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
….Complainant
Vs
- Royal Sunderam General Insurance Co. Ltd., VishrathiMelaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Karapakkam, Chennai-600097 through its Managing Director.
- Royal Sunderam General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit no. 644/45/19, Civil Road, Opposite Service Club, Near MansarovarPark, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Jagmohan Motors, Outer Sonepat Road, Gohana, District Sonipat.
……Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. SatyawanKundu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the Opposite party no.1 and 2.
Sh. Hitesh Kaushik, Advocate for the Opposite party no.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant, are that he is registered owner of a car Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire VDI bearing registration no. DL-8CW-1641 and same was insured from opposite parties no. 1 and 2 from 06.03.2019 to 05.03.2020 vide policy no.VPB0062924000100 for Insured Declared Value of Rs. 3,48,482/-. On 02.02.2020, said car of the complainant met with an accident near village LalitKhera District Jind. The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties and claim was lodged. Opposite party no.1 and 2 asked the complainant to get his vehicle repaired first. On 03.02.2020, complainant took his vehicle to the workshop of opposite party no.3 for repair work. Complainant also submitted claim form and all required documents with opposite party no.3 who intimated the opposite parties no.1 & 2 regarding the claim. Upon survey by the surveyor of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, an estimate of Rs. 5,95,151.09/- was given by opposite party no.3 and the vehicle was kept with it without repairing the same. On 29.07.2020, the opposite party no.3 intimated the complainant through whatsapp message that his vehicle was not repairable and refused to repair the same. Thereafter the complainant requested to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay the claim of Rs.3,48,482/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle as the vehicle was not repairable. Despite service of legal noticedated 04.08.2020 and several requests of the complainant, the opposite parties finally refused to pay any heed to the requestsof complainant. Hence, this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,48,482/- alongwith interest, Rs.50,000/- on the account of causing harassment, mental tension, deficiency in serviceand litigation expenses to the complainant, besides any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint statement whereas opposite party no.3 filed its separate written statement. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 contended that a private car package policy for vehicle no. DL8CW1641 was issued in favour of complainant, validw.e.f 06.03.2019 to 05.03.2020. A claim was intimated to the respondents on 03.02.2020 for loss caused to the insured vehicle due to alleged accident on 02.02.2020. The Surveyor deputed by the respondentshas assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.1,84,778/- and approved the claim for repairs. However, the repairs could not be carried out since the complainant did not accord his approval to the repairer. The respondents have not been deficient in any manner as they never denied the claim of complainant. They were always willing to settle the claim as per surveyor’s assessment. The liability of the respondents is only restricted to the surveyor’s assessment since the surveyor is an expert and technically equipped to decide whether a vehicle is repairable or not. The present complaint has been filed with malafide intentions to abuse the process of law and to harass the respondents. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the respondents.
3. In his written statement, the opposite party no.3 has submitted that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as he has suppressed the true and material facts. The complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass and cause financial loss to the respondent. After theaccident, the vehicle was surveyed by the Surveyor of opposite party nos.1 and 2 and thereafter with the permission of said Surveyor, it was brought to the workshop of respondent. It was clearly told to the complainant that until the permission is granted by respondent no. 1 and 2, the opposite party no.3 would not be able to repair the car of the complainant. The complainant has already received his vehicle from respondent no.3. No act of the respondent is illegal, unjust and deficient in any manner and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the respondent.Accordingly, the opposite party no.3 prayed for dismissal for the complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8in his evidence and closed the same on 06.01.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A to Ex. RW2/A, documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 andthe evidence of opposite party no.1 & 2 was closed by this Commission on 03.10.2022. Similarly, the counsel for opposite party No. 3 tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex. RW3/A and closed the evidence on dated 05.12.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record by both the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident on dated 02.02.2020 and after the accident, complainant filed a claim with the opposite parties No.1 & 2. Opposite parties asked the complainant to get his vehicle repaired from the opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 gave the estimate of Rs.595151/- which is placed on record as Ex.C3. As per the message received from the agency i.e. respondent no.3, placed on record as Ex.C4, it was informed to the complainant that: “The insurance company is asking for repair of the vehicle, which is not repairable. You talk to surveyor and take your vehicle”. The complainant believed the alleged message and has assumed that the vehicle is total loss. As per the complainant, the estimated value of the repair is Rs.595151/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.348000/-. As per our opinion, the complainant only believed Ex.C4, which is only the estimated value and he has not placed on record any document, report or photograph of the vehicle, to prove the fact that the vehicle is not repairable and comes under the category of total loss. On the other hand, the survey report Ex.R3 has been placed on record by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and as per this report, the estimated cost of repair is Rs.184778/-. As such the complainant is only entitled for the alleged amount of Rs.184778/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.184778/-(Rupees one lac eighty four thousand seven hundred and seventy eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.09.2020 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.12.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
.......................................
Vijender Singh, Member