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.351/2012
SH. RANBIR SINGH
S/O LATE SH. VED PRAKASH
R/O H.NO.111/9 KISHANGARH,
VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:-
PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK,
NICHOLOUS PIRAMAL TOWER,
9TH FLOOR, GANPAT RAO KADAM MARG,
LOWER PATEL, MUMBAI-400013
BRANCH OFFICE AT:-
1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWER, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW DELHI-110025
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:25.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that his Mahindra Scorpio car was duly insured with OP for the period 22.03.2011 to 21.03.2012 for IDV of Rs.8,54,100/-. On 12.03.2012 the said car met with an accident and was almost totally damaged. On the same day information was sent regarding this on toll free helpline number of OP regarding the claim and he received the claim number 620450057. On 13.03.2012 complainant handed over possession of the above said car to authorized service station from Mahindra i.e. Bhasin Motors at Sarita Vihar, Delhi. On 15.03.2012 the vehicle of the complainant was surveyed by the surveyor of OP and surveyor told the complainant that the vehicle is totally damaged. After 15.03.2012 complainant visited OP company but no one told him about the estimated amount which he has to pay for getting his vehicle repaired. Complainant received a call car from the scrap dealer and he made an offer to purchase the above said vehicle at Rs.4,50,000/- and in fact his telephone number was given to the scrap dealer by OP only. OP made an offer of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant plus the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- of scrap dealer.
It is further stated that on 09.05.2012, nephew of the complainant received an email from OP company official i.e. Rajiv Kaushik regarding the claim bearing number 620450057 in which he said “with reference to our meeting and telephonic conversation held with you, we would like to confirm you again that the subject claim is being settled on the basis cash loss basis. Our liability in the subject claim will be Rs.2,50,000/- subject to the submission of the documents like NOC form Bank and KYC of insured.” Complainant received a set back and was surprised to see that OP company was accepting their liability up to Rs.2,50,000/-, however, the insured value of the vehicle is Rs.8,54,100/-.
It is further stated that complainant till today is roaming here and there from one pillar to another for getting his claim amount but no one from OP is paying heed to the efforts made by the complainant and Bhasin Motors is saying that they will charge Rs.500/- per day as parking charges for the vehicle in question from 13.03.2012. Complainant was again surprised when an email was received on 20.06.2012 stating that “Inviting reference to the trailed mail attached. We would like to inform you that there is no response from your end regarding the settlement of the captioned claim. Please note that the salvage of the insured vehicle is being deteriorated with time and company shall not be responsible for any such further loss to the vehicle. So you are requested to please take an appropriate action and submit the required documents for processing of claim without any delay.” There was no sense of sending that email and the complainant was shocked and surprised by the attitude of OP. Fining no alternative, a legal notice dated 11.07.2012 was sent by complainant to OP however that was neither replied nor the payment was made hence this complaint is filed. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the IDV i.e. Rs.8,54,100/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. plus Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
It is not disputed that the vehicle was duly insured with OP and met with an accident. It is stated that on intimation of the claim by the complainant it was duly registered and an IRDA Licensed Independent Surveyor, Mr. Ramnish Tangari was appointed to inspect the loss. Since the complainant was not interested in getting the vehicle repaired and the repair cost being less than 75% of IDV of the vehicle, the claim was offered to be settled on cash loss basis for Rs.2,50,000/- by the answering OP and the complainant agreed to keep the damaged value of the vehicle with himself. It is denied that the vehicle was completely damaged in the accident. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Complainant took policy from OP vide letter dated 16.04.2011. OP brought to the notice of the complainant about its Customer Friendly Initiatives which are as under:-
“At Tata AIG, our pioneering spirit has resulted in a number of firsts – each designed to make your car insurance experience a smoother one. These customer friendly initiatives, collectively called the AutoSecure Green Channel, provide you with the highest standard of service, convenience and quality in car insurance. The Green Channel experience offers you advantages like : free pick-up of car (within city limits) and no garage estimate. Just what you need, if you ever have an accident.”
Now it is to be seen whether OP has practically translated the Customer Friendly Initiatives or not. To our mind, OP was guilty of deficiency in service and was least customer friendly in this matter. It is significant to note that OP has placed on record reply purported to be sent to the complainant in response to the legal notice dated 28.08.2012 wherein OP has itself stated that as per surveyor, repair shall cost Rs.5,86,680/- and after deduction of depreciation amount and excess cost, the liability of the company shall be Rs.4,77,048/-. This by itself shows that the vehicle was practically fully damaged. The surveyor in his report regarding the loss/damage has stated that in view of high cost of repairs involved, the claim has been settled on cash loss basis of Rs.2,49,000/-.
It is significant to note that there was no question of claim being settled by a surveyor for Rs.2,49,000/- as the complainant has never agreed to it. OP in the reply has stated that the complainant has agreed to take Rs.2,50,000/- as well as price of the damaged vehicle which was stated to be Rs.4,50,000/-. So in all the complainant was willing to take Rs.7 lakhs. This by itself shows that the vehicle was totally damaged and in fact the complainant has never agreed to receive Rs.7 lakhs. The report of the surveyor that repair cost would be more than Rs.5,86,000/- itself suggests that there was massive damage and the Bhasin Motors have written a letter to the complainant whereby he has stated that the vehicle was fully inspected by the surveyor of OP company and surveyor has declared as total loss of the vehicle. In fact as per the estimate prepared by Bhasin Motors repair charges were much more than as assessed by the surveyor
It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. The vehicle was totally damaged hence the vehicle was insured for Rs.8,54,100/-.
OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,54,100/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
