Delhi

North East

CC/217/2012

SMT. ANJU SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

21 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Complaint Case No. 217/12

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Anju Singh W/o Sh. Harish Kumar R/o 315/6, St. No. 6, Moonga Nagar, Delhi-110095		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                       2.	TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its competent Person/ Director/Manager Regd. Office Peninsula Corporate Park, Nikolas Piramal Tower, 9th Floor, Ganpatrao  Kadam  Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013   Also at:- B 12, First Floor, Sector 6, Noida 201301 UP   Sunrise Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. Through its Competent Person/ Director/Manager Sunrise Complex, Plot No.2, IP Extension, Near Mother Dairy Plant, Opp. Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		12.10.21 06.06.24 21.06.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

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

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant purchased a car Hyundai I-10 bearing registration no. DL 7C L 4583 dated 24.03.11 from Sunrise Hyundai through invoice no. H20100. On 21.03.11 the Complainant got insured the said Car for total sum insured of Rs. 3,85,464/- by depositing total premium of Rs. 9,395/- w.e.f  21.03.11 to 20.03.12 from Opposite Party No.1. On 26.10.11 the above said vehicle was burnt on eve of deepawali and on 27.10.11 Complainant lodged complaint at Police Station Vasundara Ghaziabad, U.P. The accident was also published in newspaper of 28.10.11. On 26.10.11 the Complainant informed Opposite Party No.2 regarding burning of said vehicle due to accident by crackers. The Opposite Party No.1 assured that as per policy insurance company will take the car from the accident site to the authorised workshop on their own expenses but Opposite Parties did not pick the car of Complainant. The Complainant paid Rs.1,600/- to Sita Breakdown Services on 30.10.11 for sending the vehicle to Opposite Party No.2. Then, an estimate of Rs. 85,000/-for the Repair was prepared by Opposite Party No.2 on 30.10.11 and assured that the said amount will very Rs. 10,000/- upward or lower side and promised date of delivery as per repair order of the Opposite Party No.2 was 31.12.2010. On 31.12.2010 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 for delivery of car but they are not inclined to listen the Complainant and in the month of April the Opposite Party No.2 raised bill of Rs. 2,56,404/- and a demand for Rs. 99,228/- of total Rs. 2,56,404/- as Rs. 1,57,176/- out of total Rs. 2,56,404/- was paid by the Opposite Party No.1 and balance amount to be paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 as the same was not covered under the insurance policy. It is averred that the Complainant was covered upto Rs. 3,85,464/-. He Complainant also given her consent to the Opposite Party No.1 for repairing at the earliest and same was surveyed on 01.11.11 at M/s Sunrise Auto World Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant stated that Opposite Parties have the liability to deposit entire amount of Rs. 2,56,404/- and Rs. 1,600/- since it was covered under their insurance plan and Complainant also paid total premium of policy No. 015121425 against claim. The Complainant visited Opposite Parties several times but the claim was not settled.  Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 2,56,404/- to the Opposite Party No.2 and deliver the car to the Complainant and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service. She also prayed for       Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 50,000/- for metal harassment.
2. It is to be noted that vide order dated 10.11.2023 issued by this Commission, the case file was reconstructed till the original file was traced.
3. The Opposite Parties were served but Opposite Party No.1 did not file the reply and proceeded ex parte while Opposite Party No.2 filed the reply and contested the case.
4. This Commission vide its order dated 23.02.2013 decided the present complaint. Opposite Party No.1 insurance company filed an appeal before the  Hon’ble State Commission challenging the above order. The appeal of Opposite Party No.1 was accepted by Hon'ble State Commission and the matter was sent back to this District Forum for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. Opposite Party No.1 was allowed to file its version.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

5. In pursuance of the Order dated 26.11.2015 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Opposite Party No.1 filed their written statement. While admitting the subject policy insuring the subject vehicle of the Complainant, it is contended by Opposite Party No.1 that upon lodging of claim by the Complainant, they appointed an IRDA licensed surveyor to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The surveyor on inspection of the subject vehicle assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,181/- with respect to terms and conditions of  the policy after deducting depreciation 5% on metal parts and 50 % on rubber and plastic parts and excess clause under the policy. It is further contended that Opposite Party No.1 paid the amount of Rs. Rs.1,57,181/-to Opposite Party No.2 through NEFT as the Complainant had availed the cashless facility. It has been submitted that since Opposite Party No.1 has already discharged its share of liability as per the surveyor report and in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policy, there was no deficiency on their part.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

7. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.2 has admitted that the car was taken to their workshop and estimate of Rs. 85,000/- was given taking into consideration the reason of net liabilities amount to be paid by the Insurance company. The Complainant was not interested in getting the car repaired and he was willing to get the same as total loss. It is also stated that the vehicle remained in the workshop for about two months and the repair was started only on getting approval from the Complainant and an invoice of Rs.2,56,404/- was raised. It is also submitted that Opposite Party 1 had made the [payment of Rs.1,57,181/- and the balance amount of Rs. 99,228/- was demanded by Opposite Party No.2 from the Complainant for taking delivery of Car. The amount is legally due and the Complainant has not made the payment of balance sum of depreciation amount Rs.99,228/- and the car is still lying with Opposite Party No.2. In view of above facts there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint needs to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. 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 No.1

9. To prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 filed affidavit of Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head North Zone Claims with Opposite Party No.1 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

10. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
11. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant’s car which was insured with Opposite Party No.1 for declared value of Rs. 3,85,464/- for a period of 21.03.2011 to 20.03.2012, was burnt due to an accident on Deepawali on 26.10.2011. The car was sent to workshop i.e. Opposite Party No.2 after paying Rs.1600/- as towing charges and Opposite Party No.2 provided an estimate of Rs. 85,000/- for Repairs. It is alleged that when the Complainant to take the delivery of her car a bill an invoice of Rs.2,56,404/- was raised and demand of  Rs. 99,228/- was raised as billed amount of Rs.1,57,181/-was paid by Opposite Party No.1. The grievance of the Complainant is that Opposite Party No.1 have the liability to deposit entire amount of Rs. 2,56,404/- and Rs. 1,600/- since it was covered under their insurance plan and Complainant also paid total premium of policy No. 015121425 against the claim.
12. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the surveyor appointed by them, inspected the subject vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,181/- with respect to terms and conditions of  the policy after deducting depreciation 5% on metal parts and 50 % on rubber and plastic parts and excess clause under the policy. It is submitted by Opposite Party No.1 that they had already paid the amount of Rs.1,57,181/-to Opposite Party No.2 through NEFT as the Complainant had availed the cashless facility. It has further been submitted that since Opposite Party No.1 has already discharged its share of liability as per the surveyor report and in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policy, there was no deficiency on their part.
13. The grievance of the Complainant is that Complainant was covered upto  Rs. 3,85,464/- under the policy issued by Opposite Party No.1 while  Opposite Party No.1 only paid Rs. 1,57,176/- out of total Rs. 2,56,404/- and balance amount of Rs. 99,228/- was left to be paid by the Complainant. The contention of Opposite Party No.1 insurance company is that they have discharged their liability by making payment of Rs. 1,57,176/- in accordance with that terms and conditions of the policy and as per the assessment made by the Surveyor. Opposite Party No.1 had relied upon the survey report and the Policy document in support of their contention. We have perused the survey report and the terms and conditions of the policy under question. It is evident from the survey report that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,181/- after deducting depreciation 5% on metal parts and 50 % on rubber and plastic parts and excess clause under the policy. We find that the assessment has been made in consonance with the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 was liable to pay  Rs.1,600/- as towing charges under the policy while the Opposite Party No.1 has contended that maximum towing charges under the policy were   Rs. 1,500/- and Rs.1,57,181/- included those charges also. The contention is well supported by the survey report and policy terms, hence, is accepted against the Complainant.
14. It is an admitted fact that subject vehicle was insured for declared value Rs. 3,85,464/- under the policy and repair bill of Rs. 2,56,404/- was raised which is less than 75% of the declared value , hence, the vehicle was not a total loss as per the policy. Out of total repair bill of Rs. 2,56,404/-, Opposite Party No.1 paid  Rs.1,57,181/-to the Opposite Party No.2 which was in consonance with the assessment made in the survey report in accordance with the terms and conditions of the subject policy. The Complainant has not specifically pointed out as to how the Opposite Party No.1 was liable to pay total amount Rs. 2,56,404/- under the terms and conditions of the policy or how the assessment of the surveyor was arbitrary and biased. The contentions of the Complainant are not substantiated and in any case, liability under insurance policy is always subject to terms and conditions, the Complainant’s case for deficiency is not made out.
15. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no deficiency of services has been committed by the any of the Opposite Parties against the Complainant.
16. Thus, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
17.   Order announced on 21.06.24.

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