Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/216/2019

Tanima - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vansh Malhotra Adv.

30 Sep 2019

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	216 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	10.04.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	30.09.2019

 

 

 

 

Tanima, aged 30 years, D/o Dr.Rajeev Kumar, Resident of House No.479, Sector 61, Chandigarh. UT.  

   

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 through its General Manager.

2]  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office SCO 37, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.  

3]  Berkeley Hyundai, Plot No.375, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula, through its General Manger.

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

Argued by :

Sh.Vansh Malhotra, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.B.R.Madan, Adv. for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party No.3 exparte.

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant’s Car Hyundai Grand i10 bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BG-7371 was insured with OP Insurance Company vide Policy No.231102/31/2018/30388 valid from 23.3.2018 to 27.3.2019 and it was a Bumper to Bumper = Nil Depreciation Policy (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  Unfortunately, the said car of complainant met with an accident on 15.6.2018 and it was got repaired from Opposite Party No.3, an authorised dealer, after an intimation to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  It is stated that out of the total repair bill of Rs.54,459/-, the complainant has to make the cash payment of Rs.2950/- (Ann.C-4). 

         It is submitted that the said car again met with an accident on 13.8.2018, which was intimated to OP Insurance Company and then it was got repaired from Opposite Party NO.3, an authorised dealer, who generated a repair bill of Rs.66,470/-.  It is stated that out of the said repair bill of Rs.66,470/-, the complainant has to make payment of Rs.4500/-.  It is also stated that though the car of the complainant was insured with Nil Depreciation, but still the Opposites No.1 & 2 did not make the payment complete repair cost.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OPs as deficiency in service with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5450/- overcharges, along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that upon receipt of intimation of the incidents from complainant, respective surveyors for both the accidents were deputed and as per survey reports, admittedly both the claims i.e. Rs.51,509/- and Rs.61,000/- were paid as per terms & conditions of the insurance policy.  It is stated that both the Surveyor had assessed the actual loss after inspection of the insured vehicle. It is further submitted that surveyors have clarified the deductions and confirmed that each and every part broken/damaged as provided were allowed, however, few parts were not demanded in the estimates which were neither shown nor submitted by any supplementary estimate. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.6.2019.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The Car Hyundai Grand i10 bearing Regd. No.CH-01-BG-7371 of the complainant was insured under Insurance vide Policy No.231102/31/2018/30388 (Page 14) for the period from 28.3.2018 to 27.3.2019 (Ann.C-2).

 

6]       The Insurance policy of the car in question was under Nil Depreciation cover.

 

7]       The car of the complainant met with an accident on 15.6.2018 and the same was repaired at the cost of Rs.54459/-.  The OP Insurance Company, however, paid only Rs.51,986/- justifying the deduction of Rs.1000/- as per policy clause and disallowing some repair, as such the complainant had to make payment from her own to the tune of Rs.2950/-.

 

8]       The car of the complainant again met with an accident on 13.8.2018 and the same was repaired at cost of Rs.66470/-.  The OP Insurance Company, however, paid only Rs.61,000/- justifying the deduction of Rs.1000/- as excess clause as per policy and objecting some repair parts worth Rs.2618/- as well as Rs.1600/- on account of salvage value and the complainant has to make payment of Rs.4500/- to the repairer.

 

9]       After careful examination of the detailed terms & conditions, as laid down under the insurance policy, especially Nil Depreciation clause therein, it transpired that the OP Insurance Company has no legal right to make any deduction objecting some repair, which actually took place at an authorised dealer while repairing the car in question on account of accidental damage.  It is though the priority of the car owner to get his car in roadworthy condition, but it is also for the authorised dealer/workshop to take all needful action/steps to get the vehicle properly repaired.  There is no choice left with the complainant but to accept the wisdom of the authorised dealer/workshop.  The Insurance Company cannot reject the genuine claim regarding actual cost of repair of the vehicle on flimsy grounds on the pretext of survey report, which is always prepared on cursory look.  In the present case, the OP Insurance Company failed to stand to their commitments for trouble free insurance cover.  The deduction being untenable amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company.

 

10]      Keeping into consideration the facts, as discussed above, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2/Oriental Insurance Company with direction to refund an amount of Rs.5450/- to the complainant, as prayed for, and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

         The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall ensure compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from the above relief.

 

11]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed.

          Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules.

Announced

30^th September, 2019                                                            

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER