Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/230/2022

HARLEEN KAUR SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

19 Nov 2024

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. 230/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Harleen Kaur Sachdeva W/o Sh. Manjeet Singh Sachdeva R/o 1/145, Ashok Vihar, Phase II, Delhi 110052		Complainant
		Versus
		M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, Delhi 110034		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		28.09.18 09.07.24 19.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

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

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had vehicle Ford ECO sport 1.5 D vide registration no. DL 1C Q 0650. Complainant had booked insurance with Opposite Party on 29.07.13 vide policy no. 015545005401 and vehicle is zero  dep  fully insured. On 30.01.17 the said vehicle got fired in front of Complainant residence and at the same time Complainant called 101 and fire police arrived and Complainant also intimated the Opposite Party about the incident at the earliest. On 31.01.17 Complainant received fire reports from Delhi Fire Service, Keshav Puram vide Fire Report no. 201878729 and Complainant fulfilled all the essential requirements in order to process the claim and in this regard the Complainant fully cooperated with the surveyor set by the Opposite Party. Thereafter Mr. Vijay Ahuja (Surveyor and Loss Assessor) gave an estimate of Rs. 2,89,418/-. The Complainant paid Rs. 1,09,674/- to Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. and balance amount of Rs. 1,79,744/- was paid by Opposite Party. The Complainant vehicle is under zero dep fully insured and Complainant was shocked when official of Opposite Party refused to pay balance amount of Rs. 1,09,674/- stating “it was also noticed that the said high tension fog light accessories fitting was not endorsed in your policy”. Complainant also requested to Opposite Party to process the claim but Opposite Party ignored the pleas and informing him that the claim has been repudiated. Complainant also wrote a letter to Opposite Party on 24.05.17 but all in vain. Complainant had also approached office of insurance ombudsman on 12.05.17 vide complaint no DEL G 047 1718 0211 but on 24.09.18 the said complaint was closed due to other reasons. The Opposite Party has not paid the balance amount to Complainant despite her vehicle in under zero dep fully insured.  Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the balance amount of Rs. 1,09,674/- with interest @ 24 % p.a. till the date of its realization and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment.  She further prayed for Rs. 11,000/- for litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The case of the Opposite Party is that it is not under any liability to pay the amount as demanded by the Complainant. On receiving information, the Opposite Party appointed an IRDA licensed surveyor Mr. Vijay Ahuja to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,10,319/- which was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. During the inspection, the surveyor noticed that the insured vehicle was fitted with High Intensity Discharge Fog lamps and the vehicle caught fire due to the said High Tension Fog Light Accessories HID fitting in the car and the same was not permitted/authorised by the manufacturer of the car. No endorsement regarding the said fittings was made in the insurance policy. As per provision of GR 41 of India Motor Tariff any electric or electronic fitting in the vehicle which is not included in manufacturer selling price, are mandatory required to be declared in the proposal form in order to be included in the insurance policy by payment of additional premium so that the extra risk may be covered under the policy. In the present case, the Complainant has failed to declare about the said fittings. The relevant clause GR 41 of India Motor Tariff  is as under:

GR 41. Electrical/Electronic fittings (India Motor Tarrif)

“If electrical and or electronic items fitted to the vehicle but not included in the manufacturer’s selling price of the vehicle are to be insured, it can be done separately under section I (loss of or damage to the vehicle insured) of the package policy at an additional premium @ 4 % on the value of such fittings to be specifically declared by the insured in the proposal form and or in a letter forming part of the proposal form.”

 

3. It is stated that since the fitment of High Tension Electronic Fitting exposed the subject vehicle to extra risk so the Opposite Party repudiated the claim. The Opposite Party also issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.17 to the Complainant in this regard but no reply was received from the Complainant. Later on, the Complainant made representation and requested to take lenient view in the matter. The Complainant gave an undertaking to settle the matter on sub-standard basis. The claim was settled for Rs. 2,10,319/- out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 1,79,744/- was paid by the Opposite Party to the workshop and the balance amount of Rs. 30,577/- was paid to the Complainant through NEFT. It is stated that since the claim was settled so the Complainant is not entitled for any further payment. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

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

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, Chief Manager Legal Claims and AR of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that her car was fully insured under zero dep policy by the Opposite Party. Her car was damaged in the fire.  The surveyor of the Opposite Party gave an estimate of Rs. 2,89,418/-. The Complainant paid Rs. 1,09,674/- to the workshop and balance amount of Rs. 1,79,744/- was paid by the Opposite Party. Her case is that the Opposite Party is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,09,674/- which was paid by her to the workshop.  
8. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the car of the Complainant was fitted with High Tension Fog Light and the same was not intimated to the Opposite Party. The case of the Opposite Party is that it had issued show cause notice to the Complainant in this regard but the Complainant did not reply. The case of the Opposite Party is that the claim was settled with the Complainant on sub-standard basis for sum of Rs. 2,10,319/-. The Complainant also gave undertaking in this regard out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 1,79,744/- was paid by the Opposite Party to the workshop and the balance amount of Rs. 30,577/- was paid to the Complainant through NEFT. To support this contention, the Opposite Party filed copy of the show cause notice. Copy of the undertaking given by the Complainant, copy of letter issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant showing the settlement details and the same also shows the transfer of Rs. 30,577/- to the account of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has also filed copy of the bank statement showing the transfer of amount of Rs. 30,577/- to the account of the Complainant.
9. The Complainant in her complaint has not mentioned about the settlement arrived at between her and the Opposite Party. She has not mentioned about receiving Rs. 30,577/- from the Opposite Party which was transferred to her bank account. The factum of the settlement arrived at between the parties and receiving Rs. 30,577/- by her from the Opposite Party have not been specifically denied in her rejoinder.  Nor the Complainant has rebutted the same in her evidence filed by way of affidavit. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party has been supported by the affidavit of Amit Chawla and the documents filed on record.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the matter was settled between the Complainant and the Opposite Party for a sum of  Rs. 2,10,319/- and out of the said amount the Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs. 1,79,744/- to the workshop and the remaining amount of Rs. 30,577/- was transferred by the Opposite Party to the bank account of the Complainant. As the matter had already been settled amicably between the parties so the complaint does not survive. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
11. Order announced on 19.11.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)              Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President