Delhi

East Delhi

CC/86/2016

MANBHA WATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 86/16

Mrs. Manbhawati Devi

W/o Sahid Shri Virender Singh

House no. 180-A, Street No.6,

Shyam Enclave, Near Adarsh Public School,

Najafgarh, New Delhi- 110043

                                                               ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s Shri Durga Automobiles

Through its Directors

55 Rama Road, New Delhi- 110015

 

2. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through Its Directors

National highway No.8,

Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan- 301701      

                   …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 17.02.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 04.07.2019

Judgement Passed on: 04.07.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

          The present complaint pertains to the allegation of deficiency in services by Mrs. Manbhawati Devi, complainant against M/s Shri Durga Automobiles., OP-1 and M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd, OP-2 with the prayer for directions to OPs to pay Rs. 1,77,460/-  towards insurance claim, alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of loss till the date of payment, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for harassment and agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant being the registered owner of car bearing registration number HR-35H-4040 of Mahindra and Mahindra XUV 500 with chasis number MA1YL2HJUC6H80137; engine number HJC4H98309 got it insured with OP-2, vide cover note number 141702311200071 with cover from 21.10.2012 to 20.10.2013 for a premium of          Rs. 56,027/-. It has been stated that the insured vehicle met with an accident and the same was reported and shifted for repairs to OP-1, the authorized service station of Mahindra and Mahindra. Surveyor was appointed by OP-2, to assess the loss and the manager of OP-1, estimated the cost of repairs to be Rs. 1,98,000/- and after inspection by the surveyor the vehicle was dismantled for repairs vide job sheet dated 27.08.2013. Final bill dated 23.09.2013 for Rs. 1,77,460/- was raised by OP-1, which was paid by the complainant. It has been further stated that the claim was submitted with OP-2, where she was assured that the claim would be settled within 90 days. On 17.06.2014, complainant was asked to submit KYC documents and to collect the cheque of the claim amount. The complainant was shocked, when she was asked to receive a claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- in full and final settlement. The complainant has also stated that upon enquiry it was informed that OP-1 had dismantled the vehicle prior to the inspection by the surveyor. It has been stated that OP-1 ignored the fact that the vehicle being insured with OP-2 should have been dismantled in the presence of surveyor of OP-2. Despite several visits to OPs the grievance of the complainant remained unresolved.          Hence, the present complaint.

            The complainant has annexed the RC, insurance cover note, job sheet dated 27.08.2013, issued by OP-1, estimated bill for repairs, letter dated 07.06.2013 issued by OP-2, with the complaint.

            Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.

Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as there was no cause  of action against them, the complaint was barred by limitation, the Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction. It was admitted that the cost of accidental repair post examination had been assessed to be of Rs. 1,98,000/-. It was submitted that OP-1 did not have cashless arrangement with OP-2, therefore, the complainant had to pay directly for the repairs. The repair work was started only after the complainant’s consent towards proposed repairs was obtained and the final bill of Rs. 1,77,460/- was paid. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied.

OP-2 have also filed their reply, where they have submitted that the complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands. The complainant had informed the OP only after the insured vehicle was repaired by OP-1 and bill dated 30.09.2013 for Rs. 1,77,460/- was raised which was in breach of policy terms and conditions, even then the claim submitted by the complainant was considered and sum of Rs. 1,64,100/- was approved and a cheque bearing number 492862 dated 07.03.2014 drawn on State Bank of India was issued. The same was intimated to the complainant both telephonically as well as through letters dated 13.03.2014, 15.04.2014, 14.05.2014 and 17.06.2014. It was further submitted that it was the complainant who did not collect the cheque. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 was filed. The rejection of the claim by OP-2 was due to the act of OP-1 and the complaint was within the limitation period as the cause of action arose on 17.06.2013. The complainant has re-affirmed the contents of their complaint and denied those of the Written Statement.

In their rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-2, the complainant has denied the averments made in the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the complaint.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where she has repeated the allegations made in the complaint and has got exhibited registration certificate as Ex. CW1/1; copy of insurance policy for the period 21.10.2012 to 20.10.2013 as Ex. CW1/2; copy of job sheet dated 27.08.2013 as Ex. CW1/3; copy of bill dated 30.09.2013 as Ex. CW1/4 and copy of letter dated 17.06.2014 as                   Ex. CW1/5.

Shri B. Rajendran, Liaison Officer of OP-1 has also deposed on oath the contents of their Written Statement.

OP-2 have got examined Shri Narinderpal Singh Randhawa, Deputy Manager, who has also reiterated the contents of their Written Statement on affidavit and has relied on office copy of the policy annexed as Annexure A; it has been stated that the complainant had informed about the accident only on 03.09.2013 and thereafter the surveyor, Shir Sanjiv  Malhotra, was appointed to assess the loss. As per surveyor report dated 03.10.2013 the net loss on repair basis was Rs. 1,60,848/- which has been annexed as Annexure B. The copy of the cheque and letters dated 13.03.2014, 15.04.2014, 14.05.2014, 17.06.2014 have been annexed as Annexure C (Colly.)  

We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for Complainant and OP and have perused the material placed on record. Policy in question was not in dispute. It was argued on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for OP that there was delay in intimation by the complainant which had deprived the OP the inspection of the insured vehicle, despite that surveyor was appointed who had filed his survey report dated 03.10.2013 where he had assessed the loss to be of Rs. 1,60,848/-. This surveyor report has not been disputed by complainant. However, OP have settled the claim for Rs. 1,64,100/- for which even a cheque dated 07.03.2014 was prepared, which the complainant did not collect. The complainant as well as OP both have relied upon letter dated 17.06.2014 which is CW1/5, wherein the  complainant has been informed regarding settlement of claim and has been requested to comply with KYC. On the other hand, the complainant has not placed anything on record to show that she was asked to settle the claim for Rs. 1,00,000/-  Since, OP-2 is willing to settle the claim for Rs. 1,64,100/- they cannot be held liable for deficiency in services or unfair trade practice.

As far as compensation is concerned the complainant is not entitled to the same as she herself did not comply with the requirements of KYC, once the complainant is at fault she cannot allege deficiency in services against OPs.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct complainant to comply all the formalities/KYC, required for the settlement of the claim and thereafter OP-2 shall release a cheque within 10 days from the date of completion of formalities.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

     

 (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                         (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

          Member                                                                               Member    

                                       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                            President