Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1192/2019

Sh. Ram Padarath Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Katyal Adv. & Kanwar Chaudhary Adv.

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1192 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	21.12.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	06.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Ram Padarath Yadav, Resident of #731, Block B, Janta Colony, Nayagaon, District Mohali 140301, Punjab.

            …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 87, M.G. Road, fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra, PIN 400001, India, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2]  Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO 804, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh UT PIN 160101

3]  Pasco Motors, Plot NO.2, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through Branch Manager

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

For Complainant : Sh.Kanwar Chaudhary, Counsel of complainant

For OP(s)       : Sh.J.P.Nahar, Counsel of OPs NO.1 & 2

   OP NO.3 already exparte.

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the complainant’s Vehicle i.e. Tata Ultra (Goods Carrier) vehicle bearing Regd.No.PB-65-AR-6278 was insured with OP Insurance Company vide Policy Ann.C-1 for the period valid from 17.2.2018 to 16.2.2019.  Unfortunately, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 24.12.2018, which was reported to the Police whereupon DDR dated 24.12.2018 was registered at Police Station Shabad, Kurushetra    (Ann.C-2).  Thereafter, the damaged vehicle was taken to OP No.3-Pasco Motors, an authorized service centre, for repair on 25.12.2018.  The loss and damage was also reported to OP Insurance Company, whose Surveyor also inspected the damaged vehicle. It is stated that all requisite documents in respect of the claim were supplied to the Surveyor for processing the claim (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  It is also stated that the Surveyor has also assessed the loss and an assurance to process the claim and provide him cashless repair.  It is submitted that later in Feb., 2019 when complainant visited OP NO.3 to collect his vehicle after repairs, he was shocked to know that the OP Insurance Company refused to reimburse the cost of repair of the insured vehicle.  Ultimately, the complainant had to pay the repair cost to the OP No.3 to the tune of Rs.80,295/- (Ann.C-6) and remaining repair was got done from outside by spending an amount of Rs.1,58,400/- (Ann.C-7 to C-9).  Thereafter, the complainant lodged claim with OP Insurance Company by submitting repair bills, but they did not settled it.  A legal notice was also sent to OPs in this regard, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]      The Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have filed joint written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the loss was assessed by the Surveyor only for Rs.1,31,669/-, which have already been paid to the complainant.  It is stated that the claim of the complainant for supplementary estimate cannot be considered after settlement of claim.  It is also stated that since the extra work was got done by the complainant, which is not connected with the cause of accident, so the same is not payable.  It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any further amount, as the liability of the OP Insurance Company has already been discharged by paying the claim as assessed by the Surveyor. Denying all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        OP No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.11.2021.

 

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainant there by controverting the assertions as made by OPs in their reply.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

6]      The perusal of the file reveals that it is an admitted case of the parties that the vehicle in question, insured with OP Insurance Company, met with an accident during policy period and it was taken to Pasco Motors, an authorized service centre for repairs.  It is also admitted fact that Pasco Motors, an authorized service centre, gave repair estimate of Rs.9,23,621/- vide Ann.C-5. However, the complainant got the vehicle repaired from OP No.3 to some extent to the tune of Rs.80,295/- and the remaining repairs were got done by him from outside at much lesser amount i.e. Rs.1,58,400/-.

 

7]      From the record, it is clear that the complainant got the vehicle completely repaired for a total amount of Rs.2,38,695/- (Rs.80295+Rs.158400), against which the OP Insurance Company paid an amount of Rs.1,13,669/- only stating it to be as assessed by the Surveyor and denied the payment of balance amount of Rs.1,07,026/-.

 

8]      It is important to mention that in case the complainant got all the repairs done from OP No.3, an authorized service centre, then the repair cost would have gone upto Rs.9,23,621/- as per Estimate Repair Cost Ann.C-5 and OP Insurance Company was liable reimburse that much amount, but the complainant while acting wisely got some repairs done from OP NO.3 and remaining repairs from private service centre, which costs him for Rs.1,58,400/- more. Thus it is clear that the complainant managed to get the vehicle repair at much lesser cost than estimated by authorized service centre-OP No.3.  However, the OP Insurance Company instead of paying the complete repair cost of Rs.2,38,695/- against estimated cost of Rs.9,23,621/-, paid an amount of Rs.1,31,669/- only to the complainant, which is not justified.  The OP Insurance Company should have appreciated the act of complainant but they instead paid much lesser amount than spent by complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company.

 

9]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 (Insurance Company). Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with direction to pay the balance repair cost of Rs.1,07,026/- to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay complainant a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.7,000/-. 

        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.10,000/- apart from above relief.   

10]     The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.

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

Announced

6^th April, 2023                                                                          Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER