DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/326/2020

Date of Institution : 03.11.2020

Date of Decision : 06.12.2021

Sanjeev Kumar Bansal aged about 50 years son of Janak Raj resident of # 218, Ward No. 10, Dhanaula, District Barnala.  …Complainant

Versus

1. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Manager, Divisional Branch Office/address at 100 ft Road, Bathinda-151001.

2. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Manager, Branch Office/address at Floor No. 1, Khati Bazaar, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019

Present: Sh. Nitin Bansal Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Sanjeev Kumar Bansal filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 2019 against The United India Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased motor vehicle policy of Honda City Car 2015-V Diesel bearing registration No. PB-19H-9064 from opposite parties having policy No. 2004043119P116098634 valid from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021 against premium of Rs. 8,349/- for sum assured of Rs. 5,40,000/-. 

3. It is further alleged that on 15.07.2020 the driver of complainant namely Lakhwinder Singh was traveling from Panipat to Dhanaula and at about 6.00 PM a stray animal came in front of vehicle due to which car turned towards divider of the road of National Highway near Rajwara Dhaba on Sangrur-Barnala Road, Dhanaula and car was hit  in divider of National Highway. Due to this heavy damages were made to the said car. The complainant immediately intimated the opposite party No. 1 for the accident and ML Garg Surveyor has surveyed on spot. Further, the surveyor Rajesh Aggarwal has been deputed for final survey who assessed the total damage of motor vehicle. The total damage cost was assessed as Rs. 6,98,027/- by the Service Adviser of Honda Agency Lally Motors Private Limited, Village Bhindran, Patiala Road, Sangrur. As per policy the total value of the motor vehicle is Rs. 5,40,000/- which shows that the damage of the motor vehicle is more than 100% of total value. The Surveyor Rajesh Aggarwal asked the complainant that as per damage report the motor vehicle would be Net of Salvage in damaged vehicle was sold by the Surveyor in scrap for an amount of Rs. 1,31,000/- the amount received shall be paid to the complainant and rest of the amount would be paid by the insurance company i.e. Rs. 4,08,000/- for which complainant was agreed. But after several emails dated 18.9.2020 and 27.9.2020 the Surveyor intimated vide mail after more than two months that opposite parties would repair the damaged vehicle as the vehicle is repairable. Then the complainant sent legal notice through his counsel but to no effect which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to release the insurance amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- as claim and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim lodged.   

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and   harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections that present complaint is premature as the opposite parties not rejected the claim of the complainant till date. The officials of the opposite parties duly informed the complainant that the car in question is repairable and not totally damaged but complainant forced the opposite parties to consider his car as total damaged and pay the claim to him. Further, the complainant concealed material facts from this Commission and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant failed to produce the copy of any DDR regarding the alleged accident. However, it is admitted that the opposite parties deputed ML Garg to inspect the spot and Surveyor Rajesh Aggarwal for final survey. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle in the workshop of Lally Motors Private Limited, Sangrur and car in question is repairable and not to be consider as total damage and due to this reason the claim of the complainant is not rejected by the opposite parties. The fact was duly informed to the complainant through email message dated 29.9.2020. The complainant himself admitted that insurance of the car is Rs. 5,40,000/- and estimated bill of the Lally Motors is Rs. 4,50,128.97 paise. As per report of Lally Motors the car is repairable. The scrap of the car is not sold by anyone and it is wrong that the salvage be already sent to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.   

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of claim intimation Ex.C-3, copy of temporary estimate Ex.C-4, copies of emails Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice Ex.C-7, postal receipts Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Ex.C-10, copy of Diploma Certificate Ex.C-11, copy of Mark Sheet Ex.C-12, copy of Mechnical report Ex.C-13, copies of bills Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15, copy of terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh Ex.OPs-1, photographs Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-11, copy of policy Ex.OPs-12, copy of No claim Bonus Certificate Ex.OPs-13, copy of certificate under Section 64 Ex.OPs-14, copy of email Ex.OPs-15, copy of claim intimation Ex.OPs-16, copy of motor Survey report Ex.OPs-17, copy of email Ex.OPs-18, copy of Survey report of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal Ex.OPs-19, copy of check list for claims Ex.OPs-20, copy of satisfaction voucher Ex.OPs-21, copy of temporary estimate Ex.OPs-22, copies of survey pay bills Ex.OPs-23 and Ex.OPs-24, copy of letter dated 11.9.2020 Ex.OPs-25, copies of emails Ex.OPs-26 to Ex.OPs-29, copy of motor claim accident claim form Ex.OPs-30 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 

9. It is admitted case of the complainant that the car bearing registration No. PB-19H-9064 of the complainant was insured with them for the period from 19.03.2020 to 18.03.2021 and Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs. 5,40,000/-. The copy of the insurance policy of the car is Ex.C-2. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that Sh. ML Garg was deputed to inspect the spot and the panel Surveyor namely Rajesh Aggarwal was deputed for final survey. The opposite parties also mentioned in their written version that the Surveyor Rajesh Aggarwal inspected the vehicle in the workshop of Lally Motors Private Limited, Village Bhindran, Patiala Road, Sangrur, as such the accident was also impliedly admitted by the opposite parties. 

10. The complainant has produced the estimated bill Ex.C-4 of Lally Motors Private Limited, Village Bhindran, Opposite Golden Earth School, Patiala Road, Sangrur which is authorized service centre of the Honda Company, in accordance which the repair cost of the car of the complainant is mentioned as Rs. 6,98,027/-. Since the complainant would have insured value of the car i.e. Rs. 5,40,000/-, therefore, he rightly requested the opposite parties to pay IDV of the car i.e. Rs. 5,40,000/- against total loss of the car. The complainant has also produced the report of Er. Rajesh Kumar Ex.C-13 in which it is mentioned by the expert that “I have gone through the estimate reports of M/s Lally Motors Private Limited, Sangrur dated 18.7.2020 for Rs. 5,68,227/- (parts) and Rs. 1,29,800/- (Labour) totaling of Rs. 6,98,027/- was true to the extent to the maximum deduction of 10% and includes the work relating to above mentioned not for Engine and Gear Box.” It is further mentioned in the said report that “after ascertaining the above mentioned defect I came to the conclusion that the motor vehicle Honda City Car 2015-V Diesel bearing registration No. PB-19H-9064 is having the damage of more than 80% and is not fit for roads even if the vehicle got repaired.”

11. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the Surveyor report Er. Rajesh Aggarwal Ex.OPs-19. The Surveyor himself mentioned in the report Ex.OPs-19 that “since the IDV of the said vehicle is Rs. 5,40,000/- it is no economical to get the vehicle repair considering its high cost of repair charges, which exceeds 75% of the IDV and it may further be increased after dismantling and considering all these facts the claim was discussed with the competent authority at B.O. Rampura/D.O. Bathinda and I was instructed to explore the liability on Total Loss as well as Net of Salvage Basis. It is clear from the Surveyor report Ex.OPs-19 that the repair value is more than the IDV.

12. A vehicle will be considered to be a total loss where the aggregate cost of repair of vehicle subject to terms and conditions of the policy exceeds 75% of the IDV. The terms and conditions are Ex.C-16. In the instant case the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 5,40,000/- and estimated cost of the repair of the vehicle as per estimate vide report Ex.OP-19 is exceeding than 75% of the IDV as per estimated bill Ex.C-4. Therefore, the vehicle of the complainant could be considered to be total loss. In this view of the matter the complainant is entitled to full insured claim amount of Rs. 5,40,000/-. 

13. Since the claim of the complainant has not yet decided by the opposite parties, non settlement of claim within the reasonable period by the company amounts to deficiency in service. When the vehicle is total loss the complainant thought it proper not to get it repair and he was not in a position to furnish the final bills or bills payment receipts.

14. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,40,000/- to the  complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 7,500/- as litigation expenses. The complainant is directed to hand over damaged vehicle to opposite parties and he is also bound to transfer the ownership of the car in the name of insurance company/opposite parties. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        6th Day of December 2021

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member