Delhi

North East

CC/43/2019

Sh. Pankaj Kumar Varshney - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 43/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri  Pankaj Kumar Varshney S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Varshney R/o C-5/212, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager/Chief Manager B.O. First Floor, Naveen Shahdara-110032, Delhi( Policy Issuing Branch)   Also At:- Regd. Office at A-25/27, Asaf Ali Raod, New Delhi-110002   M/s Rajiv Automobiles A-6, 100 Ft. Road, Near Durgapuri Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi-110094. Through its Prop./ Partner	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

06.04.19 29.03.23 11.07.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having a vehicle bearing no. DL 5SBV-2288 duly insured by Opposite Party No.1 having policy no. 271702/31/2019/7455 valid from 28.05.18 to 27.05.19. The said vehicle met with an accident, as per the insurance the value of the vehicle is Rs. 36,000/-. The Complainant got his vehicle repaired from Opposite Party No.2 and incurred expenses of                Rs. 27,375/-. The claim of aforesaid amount submitted by Opposite Party No.2 through claim no. 270011/31/2019/039077 but Opposite Party No.1 passed claim of Rs. 9,619/- only without giving reason for declining the remaining amount. The Complainant made many efforts but all in vain. The Complainant served legal notice dated 05.02.19 calling upon Opposite Party to pass the claim of Complainant. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 reduced the said claim amount on false and flimsy grounds. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 reduced the claim amount and did not paid the remaining amount to Complainant. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay the actual claim/incurred amount of loss to the Complainant as claimed by him with respect to damages caused to the insured vehicle in the road accident. He further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed their written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that admittedly the insurance policy was issued to the Complainant which was valid from 28.05.18 to 27.05.19 and the said policy covered the risks, subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy, proposal and/or declaration.
3. It is submitted that the claim of the Complainant has very rightly been considered/processed/approved as assessed by the Surveyor and the Surveyor has submit the report before the office of the Opposite Party and accordingly, the department of Opposite Party has scrutinized the claim and approved by the competent authority for a sum of Rs. 9,619/- according to the survey report followed by the terms and conditions such as depreciation, salvage value, excess clause, labour charges etc., which has already been paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party and the same was duly received by the Complainant , who has duly executed and signed the discharge voucher, vide acknowledgement and signature on Discharged voucher. The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complaint is untenable and is liable to be dismissed. Case of the Opposite Party No.2
4. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed their written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that the estimate of vehicle was informed to Complainant before going for repair and repair was done only after consent of Complainant and it is also submitted that cost of repair of vehicle is lower than estimated cost of repair informed to Complainant.

 

 

Rejoinders to the Written Statements of Opposite Parties

5. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajiv Chopra, Senior Divisional Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajiv Tyagi wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The Case of the Complainant is that his vehicle was insured by Opposite Party No.1 valid from 28.05.18 to 27.05.19. The said vehicle was met with an accident within the validity of policy and vehicle was repaired by Opposite Party No.2 and incurred expenses of Rs. 27,375/-. Opposite Party No.1 passed claim of Rs. 9,619/- only without giving reason for declining the remaining amount. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 reduced the said claim amount on false and flimsy grounds. Hence there is deficiency in service on behalf Opposite Parties.
9. Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the said vehicle was met with an accident within the validity of policy period, subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy, proposal and/or declaration. It is further submitted by Opposite Party No.1 that the claim of the Complainant was rightly been approved as assessed by the Surveyor and accordingly Opposite Party has scrutinized the claim and approved for a sum of Rs. 9,619/- according to the survey report followed by the terms and conditions such as depreciation, salvage value, excess clause, labour charges etc., which has already been paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party and the same was duly received by the Complainant , who has duly executed and signed the discharge voucher. Hence there is no deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
10. The Opposite Party No.1 did not file any evidence such as terms and conditions of the policy for reducing the claim amount on the ground of depreciation salvage value, excess clause, labour charges etc. Opposite Party No.1 also did not file discharge voucher as claimed by them which was acknowledged and signed by the Complainant for full and final payment of the claim.
11. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the remaining amount of the claim i.e. Rs. 17,756/- Rs. 27,375/-(total claim amount) – Rs. 9,619/-(amount already paid to the Complainant) to the Complainant with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
12. Order announced on 11.07.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

( Anil Kumar Bamba)             Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President