Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/202/2022

AKG PIPES PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENERAL INS.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.202/22

In the matter of:

 

	M/s AKG Pipes Pvt. Ltd., 2897-2899, Room No 12, Third Floor, Kishan Market, Hauz Qazi, Delhi 110006 Through its Director (Sushil Kumar)	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company, (Through its Managing Director)   Sh. Vijay Ahuja, Claims, M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company   Both At: 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No. 2, Road No. 44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitam Pura, Delhi 110034	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

12.10.2018 03.05.2023 07.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the vehicle   no. DL 8C T8352 Hyundai I20 car was registered in the name Complainant. On 06.04.2018, the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party for the period from 07.04.2018 to 06.04.2019. Complainant had paid premium of      Rs. 5,689/- for the same and total IDV of the said vehicle was Rs. 2,84,000/-. It is the case of the Complainant that on 07.05.2018, the said vehicle was burnt in fire. A surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Party and the surveyor reported that the vehicle was fully/completely damaged and was beyond the repair and claim of the Complainant was being considered on constructive total loss. On 23.07.2018, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Party and offered settlement of claim on set salvage basis, for a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/ as full and final settlement. The Complainant had also lodged a claim of Rs. 2,84,000/- i.e. the value of the car insured with the Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not pay the full value of the car. The Opposite Party had not paid the claim of the Complainant. Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Parties several times but all in vain. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 2,84,000/- being the amount of car and expenses incurred in processing the claim along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of accident till the payment, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the claim of the Complainant was not repudiated but closed on account of non-cooperation of the Complainant. After registration of the claim the Opposite Parties deputed an IRDAI licenced surveyor to assess the loss. The loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,82,892/-. The surveyor assessed the market value of the wreckage to be in the range of Rs. 95,000 (+/-5 %). The Opposite Parties were ready to settle the claim of the Complainant on constructive total loss basis and offered a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- along with an option to retain the wreckage of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized by the police and had been released on superdari to the Complainant which cannot be sold further. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. To support their case Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Mr. Amit Chawla, Chief Manager Legal, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Complainant. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to address the arguments. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that its car was burnt and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,82,892/-. The case of the Complainant is that despite its request the claim was not processed and no payment was made to the Complainant. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement is that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,82,892/-. The surveyor assessed the market value of the wreckage to be in the range of Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. As mentioned in the written statement, the case of the Opposite Parties is that they offered a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- along with an option to retain the vehicle. It is mention in the written statement that the vehicle was seized by the police and the same could be released on superdari to the Complainant.
7. Admittedly, the car of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Parties. It is also admitted that the car was burnt in fire. It is also admitted that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,82,892/-. Now the question is that whether the vehicle was seized by the police and the same could have been released on superdari to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties did not lead any evidence in this regard. There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle was seized by the police. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that an offer was given to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.1,88,000/- along with an option to retain the wreckage of the burnt car. In our opinion, the Complainant cannot be forced to keep wreckage of the burnt car for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Admittedly the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,82,892/-.  In our opinion the Opposite Parties have not paid the claim amount to the Complainant for any valid reason.
8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 2,82,892/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of                Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9. Order announced on 07.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)