Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 96.
Instituted on : 25.02.2019
Decided on : 09.09.2024
Yogesh Kumar age 30 years, son of SurajBhan, r/o House no. 73/10, Bharat Colony, near Sheela Bye pass, Rohtak, now at present House no.881, Sector-3, Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, VishranthiMelarm Towers No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Karapakkam, Chennai-600097, service be effected through its Divisional Manager,office at near service club, Civil road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, office at Rider House, Floor, Ground and IstFloor, Plot no.136, Sector-44, Gurugram, through its Manager.
- Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Naryana Complex, Rohtak, through its Manager.
- Jagmohan Motors, (Maruti) Sonipat road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.SehdevHooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.PuneetChahal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 to 3.
Smt. LovinaSingla, Advocate for opposite party No.4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he isregistered owner of the vehicle-MarutiBreza UDI bearingregistration no. HR-12AC-1746, which was got insured with Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no. VPC0791780000101 for the period 20.12.2017 to 19.12.2018 and the policy is Zero debt cashless policy. The IDV value of the said vehicle is Rs.6,32,800/-. It is further submitted that during the period of insurance policy on 12.08.2018, aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was got burnt and the complainant registered the NCR no. 0039/13.8.2018 in police station Urban Estate, Rohtak. In this incident aforesaid vehicle of the complainant got badly damaged. The complainant duly intimated the respondents about the said damages of vehicle and the surveyor deputed by the opposite party i.e.RoyalSundaram General Insurance Company Limited has got inspected the damaged vehicle and accordingly submitted his report in office of respondent no.1 to 3. On the asking of respondents no.1 to 3 official, complainant got repaired the said damaged vehicle at Jag Mohan Motors (Maruti) and total bill of repair comes to Rs.1,20,990/-. The complainant lodged his claim for the said damaged vehicle and submitted all the required documents to the opposite parties. The respondent no.1 to 3 official gave wrong observation that accident due to wiring harness short circuit of RHS headlight, RHS tail Light and hence regret to entertain the wiring harness, as being a proximate cause to the fire accident and it did not fall within the scope of the policy. The respondent no. 1 to 3 have given less amount of Rs.103156/- only as claim of the said policy whereas respondents no.1 to3 were liable to pay claim amount Rs.120990/-. Complainant in compelled circumstances made the payment of Rs.17834/- to the opposite party no.4 to take the delivery of said vehicle. Complainant contacted respondent no.1 to 3 to pay the amount of Rs.17834/- but to no effect.The act and conduct of respondent No.1 to 3is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to refund the remaining claim amount Rs.17834/- along with 18% interest p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realization, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expensesto the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 to 3 in their reply has submitted that the answering respondent had appointed an IRDA accredited surveyor to carry the survey and to assess the nature and amount of loss. On perusal of the survey report the loss liability assessment was to a tune of Rs.103156/-.The same was accepted to the respondent no. 4 on behalf of complainant. Thus his complaint is barred by principle of estoppel as the complainant with all his free will had accepted full and final settlement of claim. Now complainant on mere after thought and with malafide to get under enrichment has filed this complaint before this Hon'ble Commission. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.4 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle is not covered under warranty if any defect is caused due to misuse, negligence, abnormal or insufficient case. The respondent no. 4 is the service provider of the Maruti Suzuki Company and he is not the manufacturer of the cars. The respondent no. 4 provides service to the customers as per the company policy. That the warranty is provided to the customers on behalf of the Maruti Suzuki Company by the respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the matter is between complainant and the respondents no. 1 to 3. It is correct that the damaged vehicle was repaired by the respondent no. 4 and the total bill of repair comes out to be Rs.1,20,990/-. That the respondent no. 4 did not give any observation in regard to the damage caused to the vehicle. The respondent no. 4 repaired the damaged vehicle on asking by the complainant and also on asking by the insurance company i.e. respondents no. 1 to 3. Any observation given by the insurance company in regard to the damaging of the vehicle is having no concern with the respondents. It is admitted that respondent nos. 1 to 3 paid an amount of Rs.1,03,156/- out of the total bill raised by the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 raised the bill of Rs.1,20,990/-. It is denied that the respondent no. 4 compelled the complainant to make the payment of Rs.17,834/-. The respondent no. 4 charged the amount for the service provided by them to the complainant as requested by him. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW/1 to Ex.CW/7 and closed his evidence on 16.11.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 07.08.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on 26.02.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case as per the tax invoice issued by opposite party no.4 placed on record as Ex.R7, the total cost of repair comes to Rs.120990/-. As an amount of Rs.103656/- has been received from the respondent no.1 to 3 against the bill of Rs.120990/-. The remaining amount of Rs.17833/- has been deposited by the complainant to the respondent no.4. This fact has been pleaded by the complainant in his complaint and respondent no.4 also placed on record receipt Ex.R5. The perusal of this receipt itself shows that the respondent no.4 received an amount of Rs.17833/- from the complainant. We have minutely perused the written statement filed by respondent no.1 to 3, documents and affidavit. Remaining amount of Rs.17833/- has not been paid by the respondent no.1 to 3 to the complainant on the ground mentioned in their letter Ex.R4 that: “With reference to the above mentioned claim, we observed from the claim papers that the fire accident has happened due to wiring harness short circuit of RHS headlight, RHS tail light and hence regret to entertain the wiring harness, as being a proximate cause to the fire accident and also it does not fall within the scope of the policy. Hence we regret our inability to entertain the wiring harness”. According to surveyor and officials of the insurance company it was observed that there was a short circuit inside the RHS headlight due to which, this accident happened. According to us, this is just an observation, the insurance company has not placed on record any authentic evidence or any technical evidence before this Commission which proves that this accident happened due to short circuit. Moreover ‘wiring harness short circuit’ has been described by the ‘Google’ as under:-“A short circuit in a wiring harness occurs when two wires come into contact with each other or there is a break in the wiring’. So as per our opinion the insurance company has wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.17833/- from the claim amount of the complainant. Complainant has Zero dept. policy and had paid additional premium amount of Rs.5379/- on account of depreciation waiver policy. Hence we are of the view that if the complainant has purchased the depreciation waiver policy, in that situation the complainant is entitled for the whole claim amount. Hence the repudiation of claim of Rs.17833/- on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party no.1 to 3 are liable to pay the alleged claim amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to 3 to pay the amount of Rs.17833/-(Rupees seventeen thousand eight hundred and thirty three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.02.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
09.09.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
