Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/225/2019

Rakesh Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Garg Adv.

20 May 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	225 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	15.04.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	20.05.2020

 

 

 

 

Rakesh Jain, Proprietor M/s Vardhman Instruments & Chemicals, SCO No.2, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh. 

             …..Complainants

Versus

1]  SBI General Insurance Company Limited, SCF 335-336, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]  SBI General Insurance Company Limited, “Natraj” 101, 201 & 301, M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400069 through its Manager.

3]  Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177-H, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Manager (B & P).

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Anil Kumar Garg, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh.Inderjit Singh, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. proxy for Sh.S.R.Bansal, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

 

         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his Fortuner (White) Car bearing Registration No.CH-01-BN-1002 was insured with OP No.1 & 2 vide Policy No.0000000009477162 for the period from 24.7.2018 to 23.7.2019 (Ann.C-1).  Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 3.10.2018 and thereafter, after a claim was lodged with OP Insurance Company (Ann.C-2).  It is averred that except claim for extra wheel of the vehicle, which was lost during the accident, all the other issues regarding claim already stands resolved.  It is also averred that the complainant had to purchase the extra wheel for an amount of Rs.24,230/- (Ann.C-3).  It is submitted that the complainant lodged the claim with OP Insurance Company for reimbursement of amount spent for extra wheel due to loss of Stepney in accident, but the same was not redressed.  As such, a legal notice was sent, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. 

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the claim, as assessed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs.2,47,593/- towards repair of the vehicle, has already been paid and complainant has also given his satisfaction in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to provide any documents i.e. police intimation or FIR with regard to the loss of the extra wheel (Stepney).  It is also submitted that moreover, the complainant alleged the extra wheel (Stepney) to have been misplaced but misplacing does not fall under the insured perils.  It is pleaded that the complainant has been completely indemnified in all aspects and nothing remains left to be paid by the answering OPs.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.3 has filed short reply stating that the vehicle was received for repair at our workshop and the spare wheel was not in the vehicle, so no case is made out against OP No.3. Denying other allegations being not related to answering OP, the OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant reiterating the assertion as made in complaint and controverting that of OPs No.1 & 2 made in their reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       After going through the submissions of the ld.Counsel for the parties and considering the entire documents on record, we are of the considered view that the loss of extra wheel (Stepney) is nowhere covered/mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the Surveyor Report, therefore, the OPs has rightly paid the claim to the complainant as per terms & condition of the policy and surveyor report.

         In our opinion there is no justification in the claim of the complainant and the Opposite Parties have righty repudiated the same. Therefore, the present complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th May, 2020                                                                                                                                                                        sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER