Haryana

StateCommission

A/652/2019

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHEELA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL ABHI

11 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.652 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 22.07.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 11.09.2019

 

 

 

1.      Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Authorized person, office at Unit 401, 4^th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.

 

2.      Branch Office: Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Floor SCF-55, Sector 6, Main Market, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

 

…..Opposite Parties No.1 & 2- Appellants

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Sheela Devi, aged 43 years, wife of Shri Narender Singh, resident of House No.1804, Sector 2, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

 

…..Complainant-Respondent No.1

 

2.      Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd., through its Director near CSD Canteen, Sonepat Road, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

 

3.      Karnatka Bank Ltd., Narain Complex, Opposite Neeli Kothi, Near Vodafone Store, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Manager.

 

…..Opposite Parties No.3 & 4-Respondents No.2 & 3

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Sahil Abhi, counsel for the appellants.

                    

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director/Authorized Person-opposite party No.1 and Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager-opposite party No.2 have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 20.6.2019 passed by learned District Forum, Rohtak, whereby the complaint preferred by Sheela Devi-complainant was allowed and opposite parties No.1 & 2 directed to pay the claim amount of `1,42,002/- plus `2,87,800/-, total `4,29,802/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 23.10.2017 till its actual realization and also to pay a sum of `5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant and the amount so awarded to be issued in favour of Karnatka Bank Ltd.-opposite party No.4 against the adjustment of loan account of the complainant with opposite party No.4.

2.      According to the complainant, she had purchased a Polo Highline 1.6 TDI car from opposite party No.3-Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd. and got the same insured from opposite party No.1 on 3.10.2016 valid till midnight of 2.10.2017 on payment of `22,468/- as premium for the total value of the car, which was `8,10,804/-. Opposite party No.4 had advanced the loan and got it insured with opposite party No.1. On 24.7.2017, the car in question met with an accident at Rohtak when it was being driven by younger brother of the complainant’s husband, who received injuries and informed the insurance company as well as opposite party No.3, who advised to call Toll Free number of RSA (Road Side Assistance). He sought the assistance of RSA on the next day. The crane of RSA left the car at workshop of opposite party No.3 on 26.7.2017. Uptil then the car remained at the spot as it was not in a position to be driven. The official of opposite party No.3 inspected the vehicle on 27.7.2017. The estimated cost was assessed at `1,30,725/-. Opposite party No.3 intimated the claim to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 issued the claim and deputed Shri Hemant Sharma as Surveyor, who surveyed the vehicle on 31.7.2017. After replacement of the radiator, condenser, fan, temperature sensor etc., it was found that the engine had also seized. On the request by the complainant, opposite party No.3 sent supplementary estimate of Base Engine Assembly amounting to `2,87,800/- to opposite party No.1. The Surveyor again inspected and rejected the claim of base engine with the remarks that there was no external/accidental impact on the engine and hence, there was no liability of insurer. The claim of `1,30,000/- was allowed but not paid by opposite party No.1. Due to said act of opposite parties No.1 and 2, the complainant suffered a lot at their hands. There was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2. As such, it was prayed that opposite parties No.1 and 2 be directed to pay `2,87,800/- as compensation for repair of the engine, `1,75,000/- for deficiency in service and `11,000/- as litigation expenses. It was further prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the already allowed claim of `1,30,000/- with 12% interest and opposite party No.4 to waive the loan.

3.      In their reply, opposite parties No.1 and 2 submitted that a Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the vehicle in question. As per detailed report, the liability of opposite parties was shown to an amount of `1,42,002/-. As regards the supplementary estimate, which was received in the office of the opposite party for an amount of `2,87,800/-, the Surveyor had inspected the vehicle and came to the conclusion that the damages sustained in the vehicle were of frontal impact and engine had not sustained any accidental damages and later estimate was qua the loss to the vehicle which was not related to the accidental damage. It was further submitted that opposite parties No.1 and 2 had already made the payment of `1,42,002/- subject to submission of original bills and production of vehicle for inspection as assessed by the Surveyor. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.      Opposite party No.3 in its written version stated that the complaint was only against opposite parties No.1 and 2, therefore, the complaint be dismissed with costs qua opposite party No.3.

5.      Opposite party No.4 in its written version submitted that it was only acting as corporate agent of opposite party No.1, whereas, it was not the insurer. It had sanctioned a loan of `7,00,000/- on 4.10.2016 in favour of the complainant and the outstanding amount as on 26.4.2018 was `5,84,023/-. The complainant was liable to pay the said amount along with future interest and other charges. Opposite party No.4 had nothing to do with the alleged claim of complainant and the dispute was between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 to 3. The complainant had availed the car loan from opposite party No.4 and the car was duly hypothecated. Opposite party No.4 had a legal right to recover the loan amount along with interest and other charges.

6.      In her evidence, the complainant tendered affidavits (Exhibits CW1/A & CW2/A) and documents (Exhibits C-1 to C-10). Opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavits (Exhibits RW1/A & RW1/B and documents (Exhibits R-1 to R-7). Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit (Exhibit RW3/A) whereas opposite party No.4 tendered affidavit (Exhibit RW4/A).

7.      After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the damage of her car. The repudiation of claim was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service, therefore, the complainant was entitled for the claim of `2,87,800/- besides the loss assessed by the Surveyor amounting to `1,42,002/-. The complaint was accordingly allowed.

8.      The State Commission has heard learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the record, which stands requisitioned.

9.      There is no dispute regarding assessment of loss of `1,42,002/- and opposite parties No.1 and 2 had even expressed their readiness for making the said payment subject to submission of original bills and production of vehicle for inspection. The main question involved in the instant appeal is regarding the supplementary estimate of base engine assembly amounting to `2,87,800/-. The opposite parties have denied the same on the ground that damages sustained by the vehicle were result of frontal impact whereas the engine had not sustained any accidental damage. The supplementary estimate was qua the loss to the vehicle, which was not directly related to the accidental damage. The cause of accident as per survey report (Exhibit R-4) was due to collusion of a front running vehicle with the vehicle in question. As a result, the vehicle in question got damaged and the damage to the engine was also the result of the accident. Merely because the engine had not sustained any accidental damage is no ground to deny the supplementary estimate as it cannot be separated from the first part of loss. Therefore, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the damage of her car including damage to base engine assembly. As such the repudiation of supplementary claim was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service and therefore the complainant was entitled to claim of `2,87,800/- towards the supplementary estimate besides the loss assessed by the Surveyor in the first instance to `1,42,002/-.

10.    In view of the above, the State Commission finds that no case is made for any interference in the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited by opposite parties No.1 & 2-appellants while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of complainant-Sheela Devi against proper receipt and identification subject to filing of any appeal/revision.

 

 

Announced 11.09.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.