BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.261 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 03.09.2020

      Date of Decision: 15.04.2024

Avneet Singh, aged 31 years son of Sh. Manjit Singh, resident of W.R.313, New Ujala Nagar, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Office: New    India Assurance Building, 87, M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai.

2.       The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office:         Kapurthala Chowk, Improvement Trust Market, Near Adarsh     Palace, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)             

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

           Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)          

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is owner of car make Hyundai 120 bearing registration No.PB-08-CX-2929. The complainant gto his vehicle insured vide Policy No.36100131190300005059 dated 21.10.2019 for the period of 22.10.2019 to 21.10.2020 from OPs through its Branch Office i.e. OP No.2. The Agent Pardeep Kumar having agent code (NIA1D6340371) approached the complainant for the said insurance which was later on executed. On 16.06.2020, accident took place near Chun Mun Mall and car of the complainant was damaged from front. The complainant informed the OPs about the accident on the same day and vehicle was parked at Kosmo Automobiles on the same day. On 19.06.2020 Kosmo Automobiles handed over repair estimate vide No.ET 20060099 dated 17.06.2020. The said estimate was duly approved by the OPs. On 03.07.2020 car was duly delivered to the complainant after repair as the insurance was cashless. Complainant was asked to pay Rs.5566/- which the complainant paid and receipt was issued by Kosmo Automobiles, vide receipt No.4514 dated 03.07.2020. After the car was delivered to the complainant, the complainant was shocked to see that both the head lamps were not working properly as while driving on highway. The head lamps were not omitting proper lights. The complainant approached Kosmo Hyundai, and they informed the complainant that previously car was having installed projector head Lamps and as per the repair estimate given by Kosmo Hyundai cost of each Headlamps was Rs.13,857.29, whereas insurance company has paid Kosmo Hyundai for simple headlamps amounting to Rs.2925.42 each. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, complainant is forced to run car on the highway without proper lighting making life of complainant and his family at risk all the times and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed the simple headlamps installed in the car be replaced with projector headlamps as per the repair estimate or pay amount of Rs.13,857.29 x 2 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum for the costs of projector lamps which were originally installed in the ccar at the time of insurance and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is absolutely no cause of action in favour of complainant to file the present complaint against the OPs, that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and has only been filed to unnecessarily harass and drag the OPs to the present litigation and as such is liable to be dismissed with special costs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It is further averred that immediately on the receipt of information qua the damage caused to the Car of the complainant, Mr. Rakesh Grover Insurance Surveyor was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle in question. The said surveyor Rakesh Grover submitted his survey report dated 04.07.2020 with the OP No.2, be assessing loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.78500/- as per terms & conditions of policy of insurance. Accordingly, claim was settled by the OPs and an amount of Rs.78500/- was paid by the OPs as per assessment made by the surveyor in his survey report. The complainant is claiming the costs of the Projector Head Lamps in the present complaint. On the perusal of policy schedule, it is apparent that the insurance of the car in question was taken for a sum of Rs.474000/- and the said insurance is as per the standard Car Hyundai/i20 manufactured by the manufacturer of the car. No extra electrical accessories were got insured from the OP in the said policy of insurance. The car of the same model insured with the company vide the policy of insurance in question, is not sold/manufactured with Installed Projector Head Lamps as claimed in the repair estimate given by Kosmo Hyundai. The surveyor has rightly disallowed the costs of the Projector Head Lamps, which are not as per the standard model of the car, supplied by the dealer/manufacturer of the car. The surveyor in his report has rightly allowed sum of Rs.2925.42 each for both Head Lamps of the car as per bill issued by the repairer. The car of same model comes fitted with same Head Lamps by the manufacturer of the car, which has been allowed by the surveyor. The installed Projector Head Lamps claimed by the complainant from the OPs were not insured by the OPs, since the complainant has not paid any premium for the extra electrical accessories fitted extra in the car in question. Thus the claim of the complainant has been fully paid by the OPs, thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present compliant, since the complainant has executed Satisfaction/Discharge Voucher in favour of the opposite party on account of payment of claim of Rs.78500/- by the opposite parties, which has since been paid by the OPs. On merits, the factum with regard to ownership of the vehicle in the name of complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured and the said vehicle was met with an accident and then the claim was lodged by the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs No.1 and 2 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has alleged himself to be the owner of the car make Hyundai. He got his vehicle insured from the OP vide Ex.C-1. The insurance policy was valid from 22.10.2019 to 21.10.2020. The complainant has alleged that on 16.06.2020 an accident took place near Chun Mun Mall and the car was damaged from the front side. He has proved on record the photographs of the damaged car Ex.C-2. The information regarding the accident was allegedly given to the OPs on the same day. As per Ex.C-3, the complainant parked the vehicle with the Kosmo Auto Mobiles and the repair order has been proved as per Ex.C-3. The Kosmo Automobiles gave the complainant the estimate for the repair of the vehicle vide Ex.C-4 and the estimated value was assessed as Rs.99,079.3 as part amount and labour amount was Rs.31,942/-. The complainant got the car duly repaired from the OP and paid Rs.5566/- in excess to Kosmo Automobiles on 03.07.2020 and the remaining amount was paid by insurance company as the insurance was cashless.

7.                The complainant has alleged that when the car was being used, he found that the head lamps were not omitting proper lights and Kosmo Hyundai informed him that earlier the car was having projector head lamps and as per the repair estimate, the cost of each headlamp was of Rs.13,857.29, whereas the Company has paid for simple head lamps amounting to Rs.2925.42. Final invoice has been proved as Ex.C-6. The complainant has alleged that the OPs are deficient in service as they have not paid the Kosmo Hyundai the cost of each head lamps which was estimated as Rs.13,857.29 per lamp.

8.                The OP has admitted the facts regarding the insurance policy and payment of the cashless claim to the complainant. The OP has alleged that the claim was settled as per the report of the Surveyor to the tune of Rs.78,500/-. As per the policy schedule, no extra electrical accessories were got insured from the OP in the policy of insurance. Since, the car of the complainant or of the same model insured with the company is not manufactured with installed projector headlamps as claimed in the repair estimate, the repair estimate of projector headlamp was denied as the same was not as per the standard model of the car. As per the standard model of the car, the amount was paid and the satisfaction discharge voucher has been proved as Ex.O-3. The complainant has not produced on record any document to show that the discharge voucher Ex.O-3 was obtained by the OP by coercion, undue influence. The settlement can be challenged only as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a FA No.424 of 2008, case titled as ‘TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nissan Electronics Ltd.’ that ‘Complainant accepted ₹ 3,70,000 and issued discharge voucher without demur He had written to Insurance Company requesting for "release of maximum possible amount to their bankers, as they were under "heavy financial duress and problems" - In none of the documents, complainant had alleged fraud, coercion or undue influence in execution of discharge voucher He cannot thereafter question correctness of Surveyor's report - Impugned order set aside’.

9.                Perusal of Ex.O-3 shows that the complainant has duly signed Discharge Voucher mentioning that the repairs to the vehicle have been carried out to his entire satisfaction. After the settlement of the claim, the complainant has not represented to the OP for the claim of the lamps nor has questioned the correctness of surveyor’s report nor has filed the claim for reimbursement of the amount of this headlamp. The complainant has failed to show that this projector head lamp was installed originally with the car. He has just relied upon the information of Kosmo Hyundai regarding the vehicle originally having projector head lamp but no document to this effect has been filed. More so, this was a cashless settlement of the claim. In such circumstances, no amount can be granted to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.  

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

15.04.2024         Member                          Member            President