Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/549/2019

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Nagra Adv.

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	549 OF 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	18.06.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	03.08.2022

 

 

 

 

Ravinder Kumar aged 41 years s/o Sh.Japha Ram, resident of House No.806, G.F., Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited through its concerned officer, SCO No.232-234, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2]  Berkeley Hyundai (BERK Auto LLP) through its concerned officer, Corporate office Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address:- Plot No.24, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

3]  Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its concerned officer, Regd. Office: Peninsula Business Park, Tower-A, 15^th Floor, G.K. Mark, Lower Parel, Mumbai 40013

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                                                        

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Akshay Mittal, Adv. for the complainant

              Sh.Sahil Abhi, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 3.

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant’s Hyundai Grand i-10 car bearing Regd. No.CH-01-AV-4635 duly insured with OP Insurance Company from 1.11.2018 to 31.10.2019 (Ann.C-1 to C-4) was damaged from beneath due to stone lying on highway while it was being driven by complainant on 26.12.2018 from Chandigarh to Solan.  Thereafter, the car was brought to OP No.2, an authorized dealer, who repaired it after it being surveyed by the Surveyor of OP Insurance Company and raised repair bill of Rs.31,837/-. It is averred that the complainant was made to pay Rs.5800/- to OP No.2 towards Engine Oil, Lubricants etc. over and above the amount recovered from OP Insurance Company, which he paid vide receipt dated 8.1.2019 Ann.C-6 though these expenses were also covered under the insurance policy.

         It is submitted that after receipt of car from OP No.1, the complainant noticed that it was not performing upto mark, which was telephonically reported to OP No.2, whose official, after taking test drive also agreed that the car was not working properly and told the complainant to bring the car to the workshop.  It is also submitted that just after 4/5 days of repair, when the complainant was driving the car to the workshop of OP NO.2, the engine of the car broke down, so it was towed to the workshop of OP No.2. It is pleaded that the vehicle in question was not properly repaired by OP No.2 at the first instance and the engine of the same seized due to the damage to the vehicle at the time of accident on 26.12.2018.  It is stated that the OP No.2 through whom the complainant took insurance policy of OP Insurance Company, agreed to get the car damaged evaluated and surveyed by surveyor of OP Insurance Company.  Thereafter, when the car was repaired, an invoice of rs.86,607/- dated 27.1.2019 was raised by OP No.1 and it was told that OP Insurance Company has refused to reimburse the said repair cost, so the complainant under compelling circumstances had to make the payment from his debit card (Ann.C-9).  It is pleaded that OP Insurance Company and OP No.2 are playing blame game with each other due to which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.86,607/- which was to be reimbursed by OP Insurance Company.  It is also pleaded that the complainant was not liable to pay the said repair cost as he got his car fully insured from OP Insurance Company but due to the act & conduct of OPs No.1 & OP No.2, the complainant suffered loss, mental agony and harassment.  Hence this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service. 

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 3 (OP Insurance Company) have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that previous claim for damaged of the insured vehicle in question on 26.12.2018 was reported on 29.12.2018 and the same was duly registered, entertained and processed by the answering OPs and paid in full & final settlement of claim after receiving satisfaction voucher from the complainant and the vehicle was handed over by the workshop in a running condition to the complainant after his satisfaction.  The complainant again reported the vehicle for repair after driving almost 196 kms and lodged claim thereof. It is stated that the complainant observed that the damages to the vehicle occurred due to poor workmanship of Hyundai in the previous claim as no external impact/hit occurred in this claim, so the liability, if any, is to be borne by OP No.2 only.  It is also stated that in order to ascertain whether the damages claims falls under insurance cover/add on cover under the policy, the inspection of the car is required before dismantling the same, but in the present case, no such opportunity for inspection was provided to answering OPs.  It is submitted that the Surveyor of OP Insurance Company sent letter to the complainant seeking clarification on why opportunity was not given to inspect the vehicle prior to dismantling the vehicle, but no reply was received from complainant’s end, so his claim was rightly repudiated and intimated vide letter dated 23.7.2019 (Ann.R-7 colly.).  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP NO.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about repair of the vehicle in question twice during policy period, stated that the complainant informed answering OP about repair of the damage to engine of his vehicle covered under the insurance only when the engine of the vehicle was lower down to know the reason of fault in engine.  It is stated that if the insurance company later on repudiate the claim of complainant on the ground that it was informed after lowering down the engine, the answering OP cannot be held liable for repudiation.  It is pleaded that the first repair of the vehicle was duly reimbursed by the OP Insurance Company.  It is denied that the vehicle in question was not performing upto the mark on the next day of repair. It is pleaded that it was necessary for the complainant to clearly informed about the coverage of engine defect in the insurance and should have instructed the answering OP to repair the vehicle under insurance claim.  It is also pleaded that when it was found that damage is huge and huge amount will be incurred for repair, the complainant then informed the answering OP about coverage of insurance claim in insurance policy and accordingly, the answering OP immediately informed the OP Insurance Company to seek the insurance claim on behalf of the complainant, but the same was refused on the ground that it has been informed late after the engine has been lowered down.  It is submitted that answering OP cannot be held liable for not entertaining the claim in view of the said fact and complainant was liable to pay the repair charges in such circumstances.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.           

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs made in their reply.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

 

6]       It is a standard practice which makes all the company owned authorized workshops that whenever an insured vehicle is brought to it for repairs, the insurance company is informed without delay and the required repairs are got surveyed and estimate prepared.  The cost of the repair is borne by the insurance company fully or partly depending on the insurance cover of the damaged vehicle i.e. nil depreciation, comprehensive or third party cover etc.

 

7]       In the instant case, the vehicle in question was again brought to OP No.2, an authorized workshop, for repairs just after 4/5 days of first accidental repair and the OP NO.2 was suppose to inform the insurance company in view of the fact that the service required in the engine of the vehicle was major one. The OP No.2 informed the OP Insurance Company after dismantling the engine of the vehicle, which is the plea of OP Insurance Company.  In our opinion for such minor lapse which too is on the part of service centre, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. At any rate, the OP Insurance Company was informed well before carrying out any repair to the engine of the vehicle and mere dismantling of engine of the vehicle cannot absolve the OP Insurance Company to pay the claim. The OP Insurance Company failed to establish that the engine repair so done by OP No.2, an authorized service centre, was not required or not justified. The OP Company cannot escape from their liability by taking untenable pleas and causing loss to the consumer/complainant for no fault. The OP Insurance Company has illegally repudiated the valid claim of complainant. Therefore the said act of the OP Insurance Company clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service, which certainly caused loss and harassment to the complainant. 

 

8]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OP Insurance Company i.e. OPs No.1 & 3. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 with direction to pay the repair cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.86,607/- to the complainant along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of payment/27.1.2019 till realization.  The OPs No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay complainant compensation amount of Rs.20000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15000/- apart from above relief.  

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

Announced                                                     

3^rd August, 2022                              

                                                                        Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (B. M. SHARMA)

MEMBER