BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.408 of 2019
Date of Instt. 13.09.2019
Date of Decision: 07.06.2024
Vinko Auto Industries Limited, Dhogri Road, Noorpur Raowali, Jalandhar, through its authorized person Sh. Darshan Kumar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd, Regd. Office 21, Patullos Road, Chennai, through its Manager.
2. Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.354, 3rd Floor, Bhagwati Tower, R. K. Road, Industrial Area A, DH. Ludhiana.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Sorav Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Raman Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant company is a private limited company and duly registered with Registrar of companies and running its office. Sh. Darshan Kumar is the authorized person of the company and being an authorized person he is fully conversant with the facts of the present complaint and duly authorized to sign the same. The complainant had purchased the Mercedes Benz Car Model Avantgrade in the year 2014. The complainant had insured his car from OP No.1 in the year 2019 and the OP No.1 issued the certificate of insurance and the policy number of the car is VPC0940375000101 The said policy commence from 22-01-2019 and expired on 21-01-2020. The car of the complainant met with an accident due to stray cattle came on the road. While saving the vehicle from damage the cattle have damage right hand side of the vehicle including the head light of the right side of the vehicle. The complainant lodged the claim for the damage of the car, but the officers of the OP allowed the claim only qua the right hand side of the car and refused to give the claim of the right hand side head light of the car on the ground that the right hand side head light of the car is not relevant with the cause of accident. After the accident, the Surveyor was appointed by the OP to access the damage of the car and at that time surveyor of the company had not considered and appreciated the statement of the driver. The complainant has suffered undue harassment and mental agony because of the OPs indulgence in unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to consider the damage of the right hand side LED light of the car in the claim or in the alternative OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately as a cost and labour charges of the head light to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complainant sent to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by submitting that the present complaint is not tenable, unwarranted and has been filed to abuse the process of law and to harass the answering respondents. The claim of the complainant was settled as per the assessment of the surveyor. It was from the claim documents that the damages to the headlight of the car were not relevant to the cause and nature of the accident as narrated by the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and costs be imposed on the complainant for filing false and frivolous complaint. It is further averred that without prejudice, it is submitted that a Private Car Package Policy for vehicle bearing registration no.PB-08-CW-7707, engine no.230349 and chassis no.L044790 was issued in favour of the complainant. The said vehicle was insured vide policy certificate no.VPC0791780000101 from 22.01.2019 to 21.01.2020 for insured declared value of Rs.29,30,025/-issued by the answering respondents. It is further averred that a claim was intimated on 8-Feb-19 alleging loss caused to the vehicle due to fire on 6-Feb-19. The claim was intimated with a delay of 2 days thereby violating Condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions which provides for immediate intimation of claim to the respondent in the event of any loss suffered by the insured vehicle. It is further averred that immediately upon receipt of the claim intimation the respondent appointed an independent IRDAI licensed surveyor to conduct the survey and assess the damages. The surveyor conducted the survey and assessed the loss for Rs.1,58,356/-. Upon receipt of the claim documents and the report of the surveyor, the claim was scrutinized and processed based on the assessment of the surveyor's report. The payment of the claim was made by the answering respondents and the same has been admitted by the complainant in the complaint. The complainant vide letter dated 27.02.2019 had been informed that the damages to RHS headlight were not relevant to cause and nature of the accident as narrated in the claim form. It is further averred that the surveyor's report is the most important document and the same is to be relied upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has held that the surveyor's report is of utmost importance and the same is to be relied upon unless any evidence contradicting the same is produced. Hence, the liability of the answering respondents is limited to the surveyor's assessment and not more than that. It is further averred that from the submissions made it is clear that there is no deficiency in services provided by the answering respondent and further it is the complainant who has approached the Hon'ble Forum with unclean hands and has concealed material facts. It is further averred that the answering respondent reserves its rights to amend, alter, delete any portion of the written version or file an additional written version in case new facts come to light. On merits, it is admitted that the company is the owner of Mercedes Benz Car Model E250CDI Avantgrade year 2014. It is also admitted that the vehicle was duly insured and the policy was alive from 22.01.2019 till 21.01.2020, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant company is a private limited company and Sh. Darshan Kumar has been authorized to file the present complaint. The complainant has proved on record the resolution vide which Sh. Darshan Kumar has been authorized to file the present complaint Ex.C-1. The complainant has alleged that the company is the owner of Mercedes Benz Car Model E250CDI Avantgrade year 2014. The complainant has proved on record the insurance policy to show that the vehicle was duly insured and the policy was alive from 22.01.2019 till 21.01.2020. This fact has been admitted that the car was insured with the OP No.2. Copy of the insurance policy has been proved as Ex.C-2.
7. The complainant has alleged that his car met with an accident due to stray cattle came on the road with the result, the right hand side of the vehicle including the head light of the right side of the vehicle was damaged. It is admitted that the complainant lodged the claim for the damage of the car. The complainant has alleged that the OP allowed the claim only qua the right hand side of the car, but they did not pay the claim of the right hand side head light of the car. The refusal by the OP denying the claim of the right hand side head light of the car has been proved as Ex.C-3. Now the complainant has claimed that the OPs be directed to consider the damage of the right hand side head light of the car or pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately as a cost of labour charges.
8. It is admitted that Surveyor was appointed by the OP and the partly claim as alleged was given to the complainant on the basis of the report of Surveyor. Ex.C-3 shows that the OP has refused to pay the damage of right hand side head light of the car on the ground that ‘the damages to the vehicle at RHS head light is not relevant with the cause and nature of the accident narrated in the claim form, therefore, they are unable to entertain the above claim’. Perusal of the document No.2 filed by the OP shows that the loss due to accident has been shown due to suddenly cattles (Cows) came infront of the insured vehicle due to which front and right side got damaged. In the entire report, there is no reference of the fact that right side head light was also damaged due to the accident. The photographs produced on record by the OP nowhere show the right side head light in a damaged condition. The complainant has not produced on record any bill of repair to show that he has paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, as alleged, as a cost and labour charges for the repair of head light nor he has produced on record any claim form to show that he has lodged the claim regarding the damage of the right hand side head light of the car. Even the claim form document No.1 shows that the reason mentioned regarding the accident has been given as ‘all of sudden some cattles came infront of our car due to this our car got damage by them right hand side and front side’. There is no reference of any damage of right hand side head light of the car. So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to prove his case and the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
07.06.2024 Member Member President
