DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/207/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Sunil Kumar
R/o WZ – 827,
Naraina Village,
South West Delhi – 110028
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
SBI General Insurance Company Limited
7-B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road, Rajendra Park,
Opposite Metro Pillar No. 453,
New Delhi -110060
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
Instant complaint has been filed by Shri Sunil Kumar (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pleading therein that Complainant owner of vehicle car No. DL-4CAF-6440, Ford Figo and insured the said vehicle from SBI General Insurance Company Limited vide policy No. 0000000002960864 in 2015. On 27.01.2016 complainant along with his family was coming back in the insured car after attending family function at Village Tatiri, Baghpat, U.P. and complainant was driving vehicle. At about 9:00 PM when the complainant reached near village Katha Baghpat U.P. suddenly one truck came from opposite side which was speeding up towards his car. So complainant drove away his car from the direction of the truck and in the process met with an accident and his car collided with the footpath and came to halt. The side two wheels of the car had
embarked upon the footpath and remaining two wheels of the car were on the road. Nobody got injured in this accident and thereafter complainant tried to start his car but it was taking time but not get started. After making several attempts when the car was not started complainant looked for mechanic but he could not find and he parked his vehicle near the site of accident in a garage.
On 30/01/2010 complainant brought the car to Delhi and parked the same at Harpreet Ford, Moti Nagar, Delhi. After completing formalities complainant handed over necessary documents including Car Insurance Policy to the concerned person of Harpreet Ford. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle at Harpreet Ford and also instructed them to repair and assured them that the Insurance Company will pay the amount of repair as applicable in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Harpreet Ford had taken about one week time to repair his car and thereafter called me at workshop and they informed that the car is not stared as the engine of the vehicle is seized. Official of Harpreet Ford informed that take up with Insurance Company as it will cost about Rs. 1,50,000/- in all for the repair of the damaged vehicle and overhauling of Engine. The Insurance Company informed that seizing of the engine is not covered in the insurance policy. The complainant emphasized that no such condition / clause is mentioned in the insurance policy.
Insurance company insisted the complainant that he got his vehicle repaired at his own cost and thereafter submit the claim to the insurance Company as per the terms of the conditions of the insurance policy, the claim will be decided.
Complainant informed that he has shown his inability to spent such a huge amount. Then the Insurance Company asking the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from any work shop and submit the claim.
Complainant paid the bills of Rs. 8525/- at Harpreet Ford for the repair of vehicle at work shop namely Davinder Singh at Gopal Nagar, Delhi 18 and paid a bill of Rs. 36,101/-. During this period the surveyor of Insurance Company had visited and inspected the complainant’s vehicle many times and also visited the accident cite and made inquiries from the locals.
Complainant submitted his claim to the Insurance Company with all the necessary documents and bills in the mid of March 2016. That on 05.04.2016 complainant received a message from Insurance Company that an amount of Rs. 2556/- has been passed against the claim of Rs. 44,629/-. Thereafter complainant visited Insurance Company office at Rajinder Nagar, Delhi and Mr. Harish Barija and apprised about his grievance. Mr. Harish Barija informed the complainant that he had passed the maximum claim in complainant’s claim and further correspondence in this regard may be undertaken with Head Quarter of the Insurance Company. Thereafter complainant sent several mails and telephonic communication but the concerned person did not give any satisfactory reply nor they have passed the insurance claim. Complainant in his prayer requested the district forum to direct the SBI General Insurance Company to pass his claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and direct insurance company to pay the principle amount of Rs. 44629/-.
Notice was sent to the OP but OPs counsel vide MOA and sought time to file the reply within the statutory period. But OP failed to file the reply within the statutory period and his right to file reply was closed on 13/10/2016.
Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments filed.
We have heard the complainant and Shri Arman Singh Counsel for OP.
OP in his written argument has stated that the surveyor has inspected the vehicle on the garage, collected relevant claim details and documents from the complainant and repairer. The surveyor has assessed the loss and submitted his final survey report with his assessment. The engine damage was caused due to unwarranted usage and excessive cranking of the engine without lubricants by the complainant in contravention to the policy terms and conditions.
The surveyor has verified the details mentioned in the claim and tallied with the actual damages to the vehicle and found that the damage to the oil pump and Tube assay oil pump were consistent and corroborating with the cause of loss. It was further stated that that the additional parts claimed towards repairs of the vehicle are not payable as the same had occurred due to the unwarranted usage and excessive cranking of the engine without lubricants which lead to aggravation of loss, hence damages caused due to aggravation of loss and post detailed analysis the after deduction of the Depreciation the payable claim was communicated to the Complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,556/- as full and final amount towards the claim.
OP had further argued that complainant was informed several times that the gross loss is assessed for Rs. 6,158/- and as per policy after deduction of compulsory deductible of Rs. 1000/- and depreciation of Rs. 2601.42/- approved claim amount was Rs. 2556.7/-
OP had sent several reminders to the complainant for submission of cancelled cheque/Bank Pass Book copy to process the claim expeditiously. However, due to non submission of the documents complainant’s claim has been closed vide OP letter dated 01.06.2016. OP further argued that the bills annexed by the complainant does not
state that the parts were purchased of which vehicle or the same was used in the alleged repairs. OP had duly communicated the amount of claim passed in view of the terms of the policy of the complainant hence they pleaded no deficiency in service on the part of OP and present compliant may be dismissed and prayer therein may please be rejected.
The complainant in his complaint prayed for payment of Rs. 44629/- and granting any other relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances. The complainant has annexed 4 bills along with complaint i.e. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 8520/-, Devender Singh Rs. 16000/- labour engine O/H, lath work Rana Spares Invoice No. 16402 Rs. 17623/- Invoice No. 16410 Rs. 2469/-. These four bills, (other than Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd.) did not show that spares parts and labour charges are meant for DL4C AF6440 accidental vehicle hence Opposite Party has rightly disallowed the claim of the complainant.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim of three bills by OP is justified and the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this ______ Day of _______ 2020.
