STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 277 of 2016

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 38B, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, 8^th Floor, Himalaya House, Kolkatta (700071)

                                                                                                                                                                             … Appellant

Versus

1.  Supriyo Sengupta, S/o- Late Subhash Chandra Gupta, Resident of Flat no. 33, Krishna Apartment, Boring Road, PS- S.K. Puri, District- Patna- 800013

2.  M/s Ashiana Hyundai, Ashiana Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Ashiana Vihar, Near CDA Building, Rajendra Path, Patna-1 

3.  Workshop Manager, M/s Ashiana Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Hyundai Service Centre, 23, Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna

4.  M/s Axis Bank, Udaiman Apartment, 1^st Floor, Opposite A.N. College, Boring Road, Patna-1 

                                                                                                                                                                         …. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Alok Kumar Shahi

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Anil Kumar

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 24.07.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Patna in Complaint case no. 145 of 2011 by which the appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 5,84,250/- within 2 months from date of receipt of the order passed by District Consumer Forum failing which  interest @12% p.a shall become payable and further to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant purchased a Hyundai Verna Car on making payment of Rs. 6,53,344/- on 29.10.2010 from opposite party no. 1.  (M/s Ashiana Hyundai). Loan amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- for purchase of car was provided by O.P. no. 3 (Axis Bank) which was directly paid to O.P. no. 1 (M/s Ashiana Hyundai) and balance amount of Rs. 51,000/- was paid to O.P. no. 1 (M/s Ashiana Hyundai) through ICICI Bank. Sale certificate was issued to complainant and purchased car was insured with O.P. no. 4( Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.) covering the risk period from 29.10.2010 to 28.10.2011 and sum assured amount was Rs. 5,84,250/-. The car was registered and Temp registration mark BHR-1P-9680 was issued by DTO, Patna on 09.11.2010.
3. Car met an accident on 13.11.2010 and opposite party no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.) as well as opposite party no. 1 to 3 were immediately informed. Insurance Co.  office allotted claim no. 2101252655 and surveyor was appointed who made spot inspection of the damaged car at the place of occurrence.
4. O.P. no. 1 (M/s Ashiana Hyundai ) provided a claim form to submit a detailed estimate from Hyundai workshop (O.P.no. 2) which was submitted by claimant on 16.11.2010 in the office of O.P. no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.) O.P. no. 2 (Workshop Manager) also provided a detailed estimate of damaged car of Rs. 7,97,761/- which was submitted in the office of O.P. no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.).
5. Surveyor, claim manager Mr. Alok (O.P. no. 7) Mr. Kaushal (O.P. no. 8) visited workshop on 11.11.2011 and after inspection of the car decided to get it repaired on zero error basis. However, Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh (Sale Manager of O.P. no. 2) sent  sms on 13.01.2011 stating that the car can not be repaired with 0% error and same was forwarded to Branch Manager as well as claim Manager.
6. Thereafter, complainant (O.P.no. 4) requested the insurance (O.P. no. 5) to settle the claim but complainant surprisingly received a letter on 18.01.2011 from O.P. no. 4 with a direction to dismantle the car in Ashiana Hyundai workshop and complainant in response to said letter sent a letter to O.P. no. 2 to dismantle the vehicle however, complainant received another letter from O.P. no. 2 stating therein that he has not received any instruction with respect to dismantling of the car.
7. In written statement filed by opposite party no. 4,6,7 it was stated that the complainant was requested to get the vehicle dismantled vide letter dated 18.01.2011, 06.02.2011, 23.02.2011, 13.04.2011 so that loss could be properly assessed as without dismantling the car loss could not be assessed. If O.P. no. 1 is not willing to repair the vehicle then the complainant can give the vehicle to Krish Hyundai Motors in its show room at Kankarbagh.
8. O.P. no. 1,2,3 and 8 did not appear even after valid service of notice as such complaint case proceeded ex-parte against them.
9. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record the District Forum held that car met an accident during insurance period and same was immediately intimated to opposite parties. Surveyor and other officials visited the place of occurrence and inspected the car. As per advice of insurance company the damaged car was sent to the service centre (O.P. no. 2) and estimate was prepared as Rs. 7,97,761/-  which was submitted to the insurance company. Complainant was asked to permit dismantle of his car for assessment of loss and repair although, service manager of O.P. no. 2 informed that the car cannot be repaired with 0% error.
10.  Complainant agreed to dismantle his car but neither car was dismantled for assessment of loss nor his claim was settled. District Consumer Forum held opposite parties to be deficient in service and directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 5,84,250/- within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of order passed by the District Consumer Forum failing which interest @12% p.a shall become payable till its realization.
11. Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.04.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Patna in complaint case no. 145 of 2011 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd (O.P. no. 4) has filed this appeal.
12. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that complainant did not agree to dismantle his car and without dismantling the car loss could not be assessed. Complainant is not willing to repair his car and wants company to assess his loss as total loss.
13. On the other hand counsel for the complainant submitted that there is no error or infirmity in order passed by District Consumer Forum requiring any interference by this Commission in appeal. Complainant in writing had agreed to dismantle his car which is part of record.
14. Heard the parties
15. The authorized dealer (O.P. no. 2) had given an estimate of Rs. 7,97,761/- for repair of the car and the vehicle was insured for sum of Rs. 5,84,250/- as such the estimated repair cost was more than the insured value. If estimate of cost of repair is 75% of insured amount it is considered as total loss and claims are settled on total loss basis. Surveyor and other officials of insurance company visited the place of occurrence inspected the car and on their direction car was toed to authorized service centre (O.P. no. 2) where estimate for repair was prepared by the authorized service centre as Rs. 7,97,761/- whereas insured valued of car was Rs. 5,84,250/- yet insurance company asked the authorized service centre to dismantle the car for assessment of loss and repair on 0% error. However, work shop manager informed that car cannot be repaired on 0% error.
16. Complainant had given his written consent to dismantle the car for assessment of loss and repair but thereafter, neither car was dismantled/repaired nor claim was settled which amounts to gross deficiency in service.
17. Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                               (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                 President

Md. Fariduzzama