Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 546.
Instituted on : 23.10.2019.
Decided on : 16.03.2022.
Dr. Rinku w/o Sh. Ravinder Singh R/o H.No.540, Second Floor, Omaxe City, Rohtak.
………...........Complainant.
Vs.
- SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office, “Natraj”, 101,201 & 301 Junction of Western Express Highway Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400069 Maharashtra, India through its Director.
- SBI General Insurance co. Ltd. First Floor, B D, International SCO No.388, 389 Karan commercial Complex(Old Mughal Canal) Near Guru Harkishan School, Post-Sect-13, Karnal-132001, Haryana, Karnal, Haryana, Pin Code-132001, (State Code-06).
- SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Second Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Chowk Civil Road, Rohtak 124001 its Divisional Manager.
- Srishti Hyundai Jind Bye Pass, Road, Opp. New Power House, Rohtak-124001, through its Managing Director.
…..……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Satender Nara, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1 to 3.
Sh. Deepak jain, Advocaste for the opposite party No.4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is owner of vehicle i.e. Creta 1.6 CRD1 bearing registration No.HR-893-0093 and the same was insured by resplendent no.1 to 3 through broker’s Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Ltd., vide policy no.HSB/00207877 valid for the period 27.07.2018 to 26.07.2019 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.46213/- as premium for said insurance. The aforesaid policy is cashless and zero dep. Policy. It is submitted that on 21.02.2019 the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by Vinay Phougat and when he was on highway than a truck was going ahead of the aforesaid vehicle and the vehicle tried to overtake the truck and a stone was thrown by the tyre of the truck which hit against the front glass and damaged it. Then nearby Rohtak a dog which was crossing the road strike with the front bumper and affected it. On dated 21.02.2019 the complainant left her vehicle at the workshop of Hyundai, Rohtak for repair and submitted all the relevant and requisite documents for the same to the office of company up to their satisfaction. Later on Mr. Manish from the workshop of respondent no.4 called and told the Ravinder Singh(husband of complainant) that the surveyor from the insurance company has passed claim for only front windshield glass and not for the frontal damage done by dog to the front bumper. The respondent no.4 repaired the aforesaid vehicle of front glass only and delivered the same to the complainant on 22.02.2019 without repairing the front bumper. The complainant and Ravinder singh requested to repair the frontal bumper of car but the respondents refused to pass the claim for the same in very rude manner. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to repair the vehicle from front side bumper and also to pay compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that on receipt of claim intimation regarding the loss of the vehicle on 21.02.2019 answering respondent registered the claim of the complainant and allotted the claim number MV078418 for better communication in regard to the present loss and appointed an Independent surveyor Sh.Surender Singh to assess the loss to the vehicle and he assessed the loss to an amount of Rs.6656/- which has been paid directly to the repairer of the vehicle i.e. respondent no.4. The independent surveyor has not accepted the loss to the bumper as damages to the vehicle does not co-relate with the cause detailed in the claim form. That the cause of loss mentioned in claim form is “while overtaking the truck, a stone escaped from the tyre of truck hit to front glass and same time dog hit to front bumper. The damage on front bumper having scratch only which cannot be damaged due to impact by dog”. Hence the repair of the vehicle qua the bumper was rightly declined by the Independent surveyor. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that answering respondent repaired the damage according to claim passed by Insurance company. Answering respondent without receiving the claim amount from the insurance company and without receiving repair cost from the complainant cannot carry out any repair. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.06.2021. Ld. counsel has also tendered document Ex.C8 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on dated 14.03.2022. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/3 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.09.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered has tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A and has closed his evidence on dated 19.01.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per the written statement filed by the respondent No.1, 2 & 3 the surveyor Sh. Surender Singh has assessed the loss of Rs.6656/- in the vehicle in question. The amount of Rs.6656/- has been paid directly to the repairer of the vehicle i.e. respondent no.4. The surveyor has not accepted or considered the loss to the bumper of the vehicle on the ground that the damages does not co-relate with the cause of accident. He further submitted that the damages on the front bumper having only scratches could not be damaged due to striking of dog and he denied the repair or replacement of the bumper on the above mentioned ground.
7. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record. There is zero dep. policy purchased by the complainant and the same has been issued by the respondent no.1 & 3. As per Ex.R1/1, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.6332.72P on account of depreciation reimbursement in the policy, Rs.2894.96 regarding engine guard and Rs.3015.58 on account of cover for consumable items. Meaning thereby the vehicle of the complainant was fully covered alongwith depreciation value if any accident occurred. In the present case the surveyor has assessed the loss in the vehicle in question. The surveyor has mentioned in his report that there is a loss in the bumper of the vehicle and same has not been assessed on the ground that the damage to the vehicle does not co-relate with the cause of details mentioned in the claim form. We have minutely perused the photographs and other documents placed on record by the respondents. No doubt there is a loss in the bumper of the vehicle and surveyor has not assessed the loss regarding the bumper of the vehicle. The surveyor should assess the loss whether the same has been denied by him in his report. The surveyor has not mentioned anywhere the repair amount of bumper if applicable or the replacement of the bumper if found damaged badly. In our view, after perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, we came into the conclusion that complainant is entitled for the damages occurred in the bumpers of the vehicle. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 to 3 and on the part of surveyor as they have not assessed the claim of the complainant legally. At the time of arguments, complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C8 which is a repair order amounting to Rs.11200/- but the same is on higher side. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby assess the lump sum amount of Rs.8000/- on account of repair of bumper.
8. 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 a lump sum compensation of Rs.8000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) on account of bumper and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant, failing which opposite party no.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.8000/- from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.
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:
16.03.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
