Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/309/2016

Rajnish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/309/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	05/05/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	03/01/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Rajnish w/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan, R/o H.No.3289, Sec.15-D, Chandigarh.

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

(1)  TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

(2)  TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15^th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013, Maharashtra, India, through its Manager.

 

….......... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.S.K.SARDANA               PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH. RAVINDER SINGH       MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, Auth. Agent.
For OPs	:	Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant took Zero Depreciation Policy for his Hyundai i20 Sportz car bearing Regn. No. CH-01-AR-1709 from the Opposite Parties, valid from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016, after paying the requisite premium. It has been averred that during the currency of the said Policy, the vehicle, in question, met with an accident on 22.03.2016, and sustained damages. The vehicle was taken to Charisma Hyundai for claiming the damages via Insurance Company. Pursuant to intimation, one Mr. Ajay Kumar, Surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties, who refused to give the claim demanded by the Complainant. However, on persistent requests, the Opposite Parties appointed another Surveyor namely, Mr. Amit Munjal, who after survey also declined the claim on flimsy grounds. Thereafter, the Complainant also took up the matter with the Opposite Parties, through e-mails, but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that immediately on lodging of claim on 28.03.2016, an independent IRDA licensed Surveyor, Mr. Ajay Kumar was appointed to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. After inspection, said Surveyor noted that the damage was not co-related to the cause of accident. Since the Complainant was not satisfied with the decision of Mr. Ajay Kumar, so the answering Opposite Parties deputed another IRDA licensed Surveyor, Mr. Amit Munjal on 3003.2016. After the spot verification, it was also opined by Mr. Amit Munjal that the damage did not coincide with the cause of loss.  It has been urged that the assessed claim of Rs.4780/- again invoice of Rs.5782/- was released to the Workshop as per the Surveyor report and keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Complainant got the vehicle released after paying the balance amount to the Workshop. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Authorized Agent of Complainant and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that after taking the vehicle for repairs with the authorized agency, the Opposite Parties have not allowed the complete repair work and rather have authorized only part thereof. As against it, the Opposite Parties have maintained that the assessed claim of Rs.4780/- against invoice of Rs.5782/- was rightly released to the Workshop as per the Surveyor Report and keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has borne on record that the Opposite Parties have not authorized the Workshop to carry on the remaining work, on the ground that the damage was of some old accident and, therefore, the Surveyor did not allow the same for repair. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the Opposite Parties have miserably failed to produce any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to show that the damage was due to some old accident. If that be the position, before issuance of the Insurance Policy, the Opposite Parties should have taken the same into consideration, which, interestingly, they have failed, which to our mind certainly and definitely amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To pay the claim of Rs.20,000/- for the damaged parts to the Complainant;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [c] above.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd January, 2017                                                                                   

Sd/-            

(S.K. SARDANA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”