Delhi

North East

CC/63/2022

Sh. Shiv Veer Singh Rathore - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 63/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

		Sh. Shiv Veer Singh Rathour S/o Sh. Puttu Singh Rathour R/o K 84/3 K Block, St. No. 22, West Ghonda Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1.               2.	SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Director/Proprietor/AR Regd. Office at:- Nataraj 301, Junction of Western Express Highway Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400069   SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Director/Proprietor/AR 7B, Ground Floor, Pusa Road, Opposite to Rachna Cinema & Metro Pillar No. 153, Rajendra Park, New Delhi   Also at:- 2nd Floor, Plot No. 27, Block N, Sector-18, Noida UP 201301		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		15.03.22 10.05.24 16.08.24

14.02.

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 3CBX 2635. The Complainant has taken insurance policy from Opposite Party on 22.01.21 vide policy no. TSB/30361741 valid from 28.02.21 to 27.02.22 and insurance policy was zero debt policy. On 03.09.21. It is stated that the son of Complainant was driving the car and met with an accident in which the subject car got damaged. The Complainant gave claim application on same day and Complainant on  his own expenses transported his damaged vehicle through crane from Shastri Park to authorized service centre of Toyota at sector 8 Noida UP and paid Rs. 2,500/- as transportation charges. The claim application was approved by Opposite Party on 12.10.21 and the Complainant was shocked that Opposite Party had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- whereas the claim assessed was Rs. 2,41,084/- by service centre vide estimate no. BPE21 01545 and in addition Complainant paid rent of Rs. 200/- per day since 09.09.21 till the car was finally repaired. The Complainant had contacted Opposite Party and raised his concern that since he had taken zero debt insurance, Complainant is entitled for entire cost incurred in repair of said car but no satisfactory answer was given by Opposite Party. The Complainant had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 21.10.21 but Opposite Party gave false and frivolous reply dated 28.11.21. It is submitted that due to need and urgency Complainant managed to get his vehicle repaired on his own expenses from service centre of Toyota and paid Rs. 2,99,469/-.  The Complainant had requested several times the office of Opposite Party to settle his claim but all in vain. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay the cost incurred by the Complainant of Rs. 2,99,469/-  along with compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which amounts to Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest @ 24 %.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. The Opposite Party while admitting the subject policy takes the preliminary objection that they have processed the claim of Complainant only after due perusal of all the claim documents received and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The Opposite Party submits that they have appointed an IRDA license surveyor to assess the net liability and as per the report of the surveyor, liability of Opposite Party was assessed on repairing basis as Rs. 4,27,080/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 3,18,864/-. It is contended that since the amount assessed by the surveyor exceeded IDV of the vehicle, claim was categorized to be a case of constructive total loss under the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, the surveyor assessed the liability on net salvage basis to the tune of Rs. 1,62,864/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party had offered for settlement vide letter dated 12.10.21 to the Complainant wherein the full and final settlement amount was mentioned as Rs. 1,62,864/- excluding the salvage value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The Opposite Party clarifies that they had received the best quote for the salvage value as Rs. 1,55,000/- from the salvage vendor and also submits that they suggested to the Complainant either opt to retain the vehicle for the amount determined as the salvage value since the vehicle was released on superdari with condition to produce the same in the court as and when required and the Complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle can obtain the permission for sale of said salvage. The Opposite Party also required from the Complainant list of documents including the consent letter which allegedly not provided by the Complainant, thus, the claim could not be paid. Hence, in view of above, the settlement offered by them being righteous and with the terms and conditions of the policy, there is no deficiency on their part and the present complaint needs dismissal.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

4. In order to prove its case Opposite Partyhas filed affidavit of Sh. Jitendra Dabhai, Legal Manager of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party has been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
6. It is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party in the name of insured and the said vehicle got damaged in an accident which was found to be genuine. It is also not disputed that the claim was filed by the Complainant with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party offered to settle the same for Rs. 1,62,864/-.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the subject policy was a zero debt insurance making him entitled for the entire cost incurred in the repair of his damaged car. The Complainant also contends that he transported his damaged vehicle through crane to the authorized service centre and repaired the same on his own expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,99,469/- as there was need and urgency. It is also alleged that despite several approaches, no satisfactory answer was given by the Opposite Party. The Complainant contends that Opposite Party did not consider the surveyor’s report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,27,080/- and in place of paying him as per the assessment made by the surveyor, Opposite Party  had offered him settlement amount of Rs. 1,62,864/- which is way less than the IDV. It is also alleged that he had already incurred amount of Rs. 2,99,469/- on the repair of the subject vehicle. Hence, Complainant prays of cost incurred on repairs i.e. Rs. 2,99,469/- along with the compensation and other charges.
8. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that they had given right offer of settlement as the surveyor had assessed the liability on repairing basis as Rs. 4,27,080/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 3,18,864/- and under the terms and conditions of the policy, since the amount assessed by the surveyor exceeded IDV of the vehicle claim was categorized to be a case of constructive total loss. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that Opposite Party had offered for settlement vide letter dated 12.10.21 to the Complainant wherein the full and final settlement amount was mentioned as Rs. 1,62,864/- excluding the salvage value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The Opposite Party also contends that Opposite Party had taken into account as per the best quote for the salvage value as Rs. 1,55,000/- and suggested to the Complainant either opt to retain the vehicle for the amount determined as the salvage value since the vehicle was released on superdari with condition to produce the same in the court as and when required and the Complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle can obtain the permission for sale of said salvage. It is contended by the Opposite Party that they required from the Complainant list of documents including the consent letter which allegedly not provided by the Complainant, therefore, the claim could not be paid.
9. The contention of Complainant is that the subject policy was zero debt insurance making him entitled to the entire repair charges. The Opposite Party contends that the policy was not zero debt insurance, only add on cover opted by the Complainant was of consumables and Nil depreciation which means the consumable items such as fluids, nut-bolts, wear-tear will be included in claim as on the date of policy issuance and the Nil depreciation means that the cost of the parts for the already depreciated value as on the date of issuing the policy will not depreciate/reduce further during the policy period, therefore, there is no such term “Zero Debt” as pointed out in the complaint. The perusal of the policy document supports the stand of Opposite Party , hence, the contention of Complainant is rejected.
10. It is not in dispute that the Complainant received the offer of settlement from Opposite Party vide letter dated 12.10.21. The said letter provides for bifurcation of settlement amount of Rs. 1,62,864/- is as below:

Insured Declared Value	Rs. 3,18,864/-
Less Wreck Value of damage vehicle payable by highest bidder through salvage vendor. (Wreck Value would be paid to financier/insured as applicable and to be considered part and parcel of claim settlement)	Rs. 1,55,000/-
Policy excess	Rs. 1,000/-
Net final liability of insurer	Rs. 1,62,864/-

 

11. The letter also contains requirement of certain documents to be provided by the Complainant. We do not find anything on record showing that those requirements were fulfilled by the Complainant. The perusal of the record shows that the Opposite Party has also issued two reminders in that regards but the Complainant instead of providing the required documents and consent, got the vehicle repaired on 25.12.2021 without the consent of the Opposite Party.
12. The contention of the Complainant as to the non payment towing charges is also rejected as the Opposite Party has submitted that the towing charges were not covered under the policy and policy document supports the contention of Opposite Party.
13. The Opposite Party had considered the claim of the Complainant on the basis of surveyor report and made an offer of settlement to the Complainant which in our view, is just as being in accordance with under the terms and conditions of the policy. We do not see any fault or deficiency on the part of Opposite Party towards the Complainant as alleged. It is the Complainant who instead of accepting the righteous offer, got the vehicle repaired without the consent of the Opposite Party as was required under the policy contract.
14. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Complainant was entitled to the claim amount as per the surveyor’s report and Opposite Party rightly offered the settlement amount under the insurance contract.  The Complainant himself is responsible for the delay in payment of claim amount.
15. In view of above noted facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party has not been deficient in services while considering the claim of Complainant. Hence, the present complaint is disposed of in the following manner:-

 

1. Opposite Party is directed to pay to the Complainant the settlement amount of Rs.1,62,864.00 upon completion of requisite documentation formalities by the Complainant.
2. The Complainant shall be entitled to the interest @ 9 % per annum on above noted amount from the date of this order till its recovery.

 

16. Order announced on 16.08.24.

 

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)    Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President