CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.611/2010
MR. BHANU PRATAP SINGH DHAKRAY
A-6, SECTOR-40, NOIDA-201301
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs
- TATA-AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DY. MANAGER, CLAIMS DEPARTMENT
LOTUS TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025
- MR. TARUN GARG
DY. MANAGER, CLAIMS DEPARTMENT
TATA-AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LOTUS TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025
- MR. RAJIV KAUSHIK, SURVEYOR
TATA-AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
LOTUS TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025
- MR. CHANDAR MANCHANDA
292, ANARKALI COMPLEX,
JHANDEWALAN, KAROL BAGH,
NEW DELHI
- DEUTSCHE MOTOREN PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS – BODY SHOP MANAGER (TUSHAR DEBNATH)
H-5/B-1, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 15.01.2019
O R D E R
H.C. Suri – Member
The complainant herein, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Dhakray has filed the present complaint under Sections 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against (1) Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., OP-1; (2) Mr. Tarun Garg, Deputy Manager Claim Department, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., OP-2; (3) Mr. Rajiv Kaushik (Surveyor) Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., OP-3; (4) Mr. Chander Manchanda, OP-4; and (5) Deutsche Motoren Pvt. Ltd., OP-5.
The complainant submits in the complaint that he had purchased a BMW Car bearing registration no.DL 2CQ 4256 on 18.3.2009 for Rs.30,50,000/- which was earlier insured from BMW Secure with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. but later, on the persuasion of OP-4 that all types of risks/claims would be covered for a lesser premium of Rs.65,577/- if the complainant would take “0% Depreciation in Pearl Plan Tata AIG Insurance”, and repeatedly convinced the complainant to have the said insurance policy, for insuring the value of Rs.27,50,000/- from 17.3.2010 to 16.3.2011. On receipt of the requisite premium, the OP issued an Insurance Cover Note no.WM no.10660442 on 16.3.2010 which was handed over to the complainant on 22.3.2010. The complainant was assured by OP-4 that the Insurance policy would be provided to the complainant by post at the earliest within 30 days. It is submitted that the said vehicle met with an incident of theft on the intervening night of 23rd and 24th June, 2010, in which the thief had tried to steal the wheels of the vehicle, but failing which, the thief had inserted a number of iron nails at the rear tyres of the vehicle and had stolen a water tap which was being used for car washing purposes. The complainant is stated to have lodged a police complaint dated 24.6.2010 in this regard. The complainant informed OP-5 along with a copy of the Intimation cum Preliminary Claim Form – Auto Policy dated 24.6.2010, Insurance cover dated 16.3.2010, and sent the car to them for repair of the damage. The car was inspected by the surveyor OP-3, but OP-3 demanded illegal gratification and threatened that if the complainant does not pay 10% of the claim in cash, the claim of the vehicle would be declined. It is submitted that the complainant made complaint against the surveyor to OP-1 but no action was taken. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 29.7.2010 to all the OPs to decide on the claim of the complainant. In reply to the legal notice, OP-1 sent letter dated 30.7.2010 with the averment that the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the TATA AIG, and informed that the claim had already been repudiated vide letter dated 18.8.2010. The complainant further submitted that after a detention of vehicle of the complainant for 36 days and great inconvenience, the complainant had replaced the tyres of the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.29,414/- to OP-5 vide Retail Invoice dated 7.10.2010. It is submitted that the declining of the claim of the complainant was illegal and arbitrary action of the OP, and that due to the intentional delay in appreciating the valid claim of the vehicle, and for detaining the vehicle for more than a month, a suitable compensation might be awarded to the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the OPs might be directed to remove the acts of negligence and efficiency in service and reimburse the amount of Rs.29,414/- with interest and also pay compensation.
The OPs filed their written statement. OPs 1 to 3 in their WS, submitted that the complaint is frivolous and is an abuse of the process of this Forum, and denied all the allegations in the complaint, except those specifically admitted. It is submitted that the complainant has not brought the complete facts on the terms and conditions of the policy which shows the coverage and exclusions, and that the allegations have been made to mislead the Forum. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any amounts from the OPs. Similarly, OP-5 in its WS submitted that the complaint is wholly misconceived and unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the same is without any cause of action and the Forum has been used to extort undue damages from the OP. It is submitted that the vehicle in question remained parked at the workshop of OP-5 at the instance of the complainant himself. The OP-5 prays that the complaint might be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The complainant filed rejoinder to all the written statements of the OPs, and denied the contents thereof, and reiterated the allegations and contents of the complaint. The parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and also filed their written submissions.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
The case of the complainant is that his insured vehicle met with an incident of theft on the intervening night of 23rd and 24th June, 2010, in which the thief had tried to steal the wheels of the vehicle, but failing which, the thief had inserted a number of iron nails at the rear tyres of the vehicle and had stolen a water tap which was being used for car washing purposes.
The claim was repudiated by OP vide letter dated 18.08.2010 referring to clause 2(b) of Section I of the policy which provides:-
“The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement.”
Now the only point for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim was justified.
The complainant has himself placed on record the terms and conditions of the policy of Tata AIG Insurance Auto Secure. It is evident from Section I (2) (b) of the terms and conditions of the policy that damage to the tyres/tubes alone are not covered unless the vehicle is also damaged at the same time and even in that case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of replacement. In the present case admittedly there is no damage to the vehicle other than to the tyres and hence the claim is beyond the scope of coverage cited above. It was never the claim of the complainant that the vehicle is also damaged at the same time. The stand of the complainant in the present case that the damage to tyres comes under Section I (1) of the policy is factually wrong as Section I(1) has to be read in totality with Section I (2)(b) which mentions the exclusion. The terms of the Policy are very clear and unambiguous.
OP was justified in repudiating the claim. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
