Delhi

East Delhi

CC/702/2013

ALKA GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNRISE HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  702/13

 

Ms. Alka Garg

R/o 4/1997, street No. 16

Vishwas Nagar

Shahdara, Delhi                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Sunrise Hyundai Pvt. Ltd.

Sunrise Complex, Plot No. 2

I.P. Extension, Near Mother Dairy

Opp. Pandav Nagar, Delhi – 92

 

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: Peninsula Corporate Park

Piramal Tower, 9^th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg

Lower Prel, Mumbai – 400 013                                          Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 13.08.2013

Judgement Reserved on : 05.02.2018

Judgement Passed on: 08.02.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Alka Garg against M/s. Sunrise Hyundai Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a car bearing no. DL 7C 8107, Hyundai Verna, in the year 2011 from Sunrise Hyundai showroom at I.P. Extension, New Delhi.  She also purchased an Auto Secure Private Car Package Policy from M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) with certificate and policy no. 010071056200 for a total premium of Rs. 28,623/-.  It was insured for a sum of Rs. 8,72,000/-.  The policy was from 19.01.2013 till midnight of 08.01.2014.  It was cashless comprehensive policy under which the complainant was entitled for the benefits namely:

(a) Any partial or total loss to the vehicle arising out of an accident or an account of fire and allied perils, burglary and theft, terrorism, natural hazard, etc.

(b) Covers third party property damage and third party bodily injury

(c) Value added covers to provide an extra protection beyond the benefits available under tariff.

            The complainant was assured that a new value added covers extra assurance.  It covers not only damage caused due to accident, but also covers depreciation.  She was given various verbal assurances.  She made a request to respondent no. 2 on 22.05.2013 to make accidental repairs under the insurance policy cover as her car got damaged in an accident on 18.05.2013.  The accident was reported on 20.05.2013.  She also informed to the insurance authorities that her car got damaged while going to Vaishali office of the complainant’s husband.  Her husband was driving the car.  She was advised that the repair of damages would take seven days’ time.  She left her with respondent no. 1 at their workshop which was an authorized Hyundai workshop. 

            Since the job work of repair was to be carried in the same workshop, she made a request of car service also.  She also made a complaint that the car be checked for low average, rear glass noise, anti-teflon rechecking, dry cleaning, wheel balancing and alignment etc.  It has been stated that respondent no. 1 made arbitrary invoice of Rs. 5,946/- for the job which was never carried out.  The alignment of the wheel was not done as the car was moving towards left side.  She made visit to the workshop everyday to ensure that the car was ready.  The complainant was asked to take delivery after two days.  She repeatedly called respondent no. 2 and sought explanation for the damages reported.  She was surprised to receive an invoice of dated 31.05.2013 in which she was asked to pay Rs. 8,050/- as damage repair charges. 

            She had a cashless Auto Secure Private Car Package Policy on a high premium of Rs. 28,623/-.  She was further asked to pay Rs. 2,000/- as process charges for insurance claim.  Respondent no. 2 refused to permit reimbursement of front wind shield glass and asked the complainant to process a fresh insurance claim for wind shield glass on payment of fresh arbitrary process fee of Rs. 2,000/-.  She repeatedly informed that the damages of front bumper and wind shield glass occurred at the same time as a consequence of single accident; therefore, one insurance claim was maintainable for both the damages.  She was refused reimbursement of wind shield in the same insurance claim.  She under protest made the entire payment of accidental repairs from her own pocket and took delivery of the vehicle after having full payment on 03.06.2013. 

            It  has been stated that the complainant have got the service on paying from her own pocket which amounts to unfair practice on the part of respondent no. 2 as well as deficiency in service.  She has further stated that she has suffered loss of vehicle from 22.05.2013 till 03.06.2013 as the respondents kept the vehicle in their possession on the pretext of repair and service.  She has suffered loss of Rs. 800/- per day which comes to Rs. 10,400/-.  She has also suffered mental pain and agony for which she has claimed an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.  Further, she has claimed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for not providing service as per the requirements.  Thus, she has prayed for compensation for loss of transport to the tune of Rs. 800/- per day which comes to Rs. 10,400/-;    Rs. 50,000/- on account of suffering mental agony; Rs. 2,000/- on the pretext of process fee; Rs. 20,000/- for not providing service as per the requirement in the job order; Rs. 5,000/- for arbitrarily claiming money and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.       

 3.        In the reply filed on behalf of M/s. Sunrise Hyundai Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), they have also stated that the vehicle was brought to their service centre for third free service on 22.05.2013.  The repair order was opened for accidental and third free service.  She wanted insurance claim with respect to wind shield glass as well as front bumper.  Surveyor of respondent no. 2 surveyed the vehicle who gave the approval for front bumper only on 24.05.2013.  Thereafter, work approval was sought from the customer who gave the same on 25.05.2013.  The vehicle was repaired, but the customer refused to take claim which was approved by the surveyor.  On 03.06.2013, she paid the amount and took the vehicle.  The entire job work was done by respondent no. 1 to the satisfaction of the customer and no complaint has ever been made by the complainant with respect to the same.  They have denied other facts.

            In the WS, filed on behalf of M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that complainant intimated to respondent for the accident on 18.05.2013.  On receipt of intimation, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 5,549/- which included Rs. 1,318/- towards depreciation and after deducting Rs. 2,000/- towards compulsory excess clause admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy, they wrote a letter dated 04.06.2014 and 13.06.2014 requesting the complainant to furnish the exact cause of damage to the front wind shield and submit repair bills and payment proof in order to further process the claim.  However, the complainant failed to furnish the details, due to which they close the claim.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where she has narrated the facts which have been mentioned in the complaint.  She has got exhibited documents such as copy of Auto Secure Private Car Package Policy (Ex.CW-1/A), invoice dated 31.05.2013 for Rs. 5,946/- (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of invoice for Rs. 8,050/- dated 31.05.2013 (Ex.CW-1/C), copy of service order dated 22.05.2013 (Ex.CW-1/D), copies of insurance claim repair order dated 22.05.2013 (Ex.CW-1/E), copy of complaint (Ex.CW-1/F) and copy of letter dated 04.06.2013, issued by OP-2 (Ex.CW-1/G).    

            In defence, M/s. Sunrise Hyundai Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) have examined Shri Gireesh Kumar Srivastava, authorized representative of OP-1, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in their written statement. 

            M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) have examined Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head – Claims, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in their written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of insurance policy alongwith its terms and conditions (Ex.R-2/1), claim form (Ex.R-2/2), surveyor assessment sheet (Ex.R-2/3) and letters dated 04.06.2014 & 13.06.2014 (Ex.R-2/4 colly.).

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-2 that they have appointed their surveyor who assessed loss for which the complainant did not submit the claim alongwith documents.  Arguments advanced on behalf of OP-1 have been that they have got the vehicle repaired and she has taken the vehicle after paying the amount as per her satisfaction. 

            From the evidence on record, it comes out that OP-2 have not denied their liability in respect of the loss as per the surveyor report, but they have only stated that she has not submitted the claim alongwith documents.  They have requested the complainant to submit the documents through their letter of dated 13.06.2013.  Thus, the fact remains that OP-2 have requested to submit the documents for processing the claim which she has not submitted.  The fact that complainant have not submitted the claim alongwith relevant documents for processing the claim, there cannot be any deficiency on the part of OP-2.  Similarly, OP-1 have repaired the vehicle and has given its delivery to her own satisfaction.  When she has got the vehicle after servicing and repair to her satisfaction, she cannot say that there was any deficiency on the part of OP-1. 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there has been no deficiency on the part of OP-1 as well as OP-2.  When there has been no deficiency on the part of both the OPs, the complaint cannot sustain.  The same stands dismissed.  However, the complainant is at the liberty to submit the documents with M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) for getting her claim.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                 President