Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/314/2015

Jaspreet Singh Bakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	314 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	19.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.11.2015

 

Jaspreet Singh Bakshi, #12, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh through Lt. Col. T.S. Bakshi (Retd.) duly appointed Attorney.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 457-458, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Mukesh Agarwal, Surveyor through Dy. Manager, Investigation, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., 7B, Ground Floor, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110060.
3. Samra Hyundai, B-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi-110020.

....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

Lt. Col.  T. S. Bakshi (Retd.) duly appointed Attorney for the appellant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘Forum’), vide which, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) was allowed, qua Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 only, directing them to pay 12% interest on locked up value of IDV of Rs.4,25,000/- beyond a period of six months for which the vehicle was retained by the workshop besides payment of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service & causing mental and physical harassment to the appellant and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The order impugned was directed to be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till it was paid besides payment of cost of litigation. However, the complaint qua Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 was dismissed by the Forum.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that the appellant got his vehicle bearing No.CH04E-2299, insured with respondent No.1. The vehicle was then stolen from Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, during the night intervening 19/20.06.2013, and later on recovered from Moradabad, U.P. The aforesaid vehicle was sent to respondent No.3 for repairs and the same was finally handed over to the appellant, after 18 months, and that too without rectifying all the defects. It was stated that, since the car had been got insured from respondent No.1, on payment of premium, yet the survey report, in respect of the defects, was made available after 14 weeks of recovery thereof. It was further stated that various parts of the car, in question, were not replaced by respondent No.3, despite the fact that the same had been approved by the Surveyor. It was further stated that a lot of correspondence was made by the appellant, with the respondents but they did not take the matter seriously.
3.       On the other hand, the case of respondent No.1,in its written statement, was that it had appointed respondent No.2 as Surveyor, who after inspecting the vehicle, submitted his report dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure  R-3). It was stated that respondent No.1 settled the claim as per the terms & conditions of the Policy and it was not responsible for the delay caused in repair of the vehicle and the same, if any, was caused by the appellant himself as he wanted to get all the old parts changed by taking benefit of the accident under the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that the appellant took delivery of the vehicle with his own satisfaction from respondent No.3 and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1.     
4.       Similarly, respondent No.3, in its written statement, stated that all the spare parts, sanctioned to be replaced, were replaced by it in time and the cost of repair was to be disbursed from the Insurance Company to respondent No.3. It was further stated that the car was delivered after making requisite repairs and after making it road worthy. It was further stated that the appellant checked the car and only after being satisfied with the repairs and its condition, took its delivery.
5.       Respondent No.4, in its written statement, stated that it had only insured the vehicle of the appellant with respondent No.1 and collected the brokerage. It was further stated that respondent No.1 was responsible to pay the insurance amount to the appellant.  
6.       We have heard Lt. Col. T. S. Bakshi, duly appointed attorney of the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
7.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.
8.       The core question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether the claim of the appellant was settled as per terms and conditions of the Policy and whether there was delay in carrying out survey by respondent No.2, giving instructions on behalf of respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 for carrying our repair and maintenance work of the vehicle. Shri Mukesh Kumar, who was appointed as Surveyor, sent letter dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure C-19) desiring certain documents from the appellant but that letter was sent on wrong address by mentioning Sector 18-A instead of Sector 8-A. This led to part delay in carrying out repairs. It is also evident from record that respondent No.1 had asked the appellant to submit documents sought by the Surveyor vide letter dated 02.05.2014 (Annexure C-22), wherein it was categorically stated that letter dated 10.11.2013 and emails dated 9.1.2014 & 19.2.2014 sent by the Surveyor to the appellant had not been replied to by the appellant. Thus, delay is not only attributable to the respondents but to the appellant also. The Forum has rightly held that respondent No.1 cannot escape its responsibility for the failure on the part of respondent No.2, as respondent No.2 (Surveyor) was appointed by respondent No.1. As per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests) Regulations, 2002), in special circumstance of the case,  the Surveyor, could take six months for submission of his report, from the date of his appointment.  In all fairness, respondent No.2 was required to conduct survey and submit his report within reasonable time frame. Nevertheless, for deficiency attributable to respondent No.2, appellant has been adequately compensated by the Forum by directing respondents No.1 and 2 to pay 12% interest on locked up value of IDV of Rs.4,25,000/- beyond a period of six months for which the vehicle was retained in the workshop besides payment of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service & causing mental and physical harassment to the appellant and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
9.       As per Motor Survey Report dated 22.10.2014, “……all the parts that were allowed for replacement were found replaced by NEW ones. The vehicle was thus found to be satisfactorily repaired and was in good condition…..” In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the appellant has been adequately compensated for the deficiency attributable to respondents No.1 and 2 and for the mental and physical harassment undergone by him (appellant). In our considered opinion, since appellant was also responsible for delay, there is no justification for enhancing compensation.
10.       No other point, was urged, by the Attorney for the appellant.
11.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order under challenge is upheld.
13.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

November 23, 2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Ad