Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/25/2022

Anita Bai - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

V.P Yadav

22 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                     Complaint Case No. : 25 of 2022

                                                                     Date of Institution    : 28.01.2022

                                                                     Date of decision:      : 22.05.2024

 

 Anita Bai wife of Sh. Rajbir R/o village Asalwas Dubia, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., having its issuing office 501-503, Vikrant Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 through its authorized signatory.

 

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Office at Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. V.P. Yadav, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OPs.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of Audi Car bearing registration number UP-80DM/1117 got insured the same from OPs for a period from 21.09.2020 to 20.09.2021. At the time of insurance, the Op got inspected the vehicle and only found front bumper scratched. On 07.12.2020, the vehicle met with an accident due to sudden coming of a pig in front of the vehicle in the area of Pali (Rajasthan) and vehicle damaged completely.  Husband of complainant was driver at that time and was having a valid and effective driving license.  OPs were informed, site was inspected and made report about the accident. The vehicle was got repaired from Kamal Autotech Pvt. Ltd. Audi, Jaipur and Rs.5,09,316 was incurred on its repair, however, the OPs paid only Rs.4,07,000/- as claim amount on 24.02.2021.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end,  prayer has been made to directed the Ops to pay the balance repair amount Rs.1,10,000/- @ 18% interest per annum upto date. Further, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment, Rs.5500/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint, concealment of true facts and deficiency in service. On merits, it is submitted that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainant has already been paid claim amount after assessment of loss by independent surveyor.  It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any claim amount sought under the present complaint. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-17 and closed the evidence.

4.                 Ld. Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, affidavits of Ms. Priyanka, Assistant Manager and Ms. Kamlesh Kishnani as Ex.RW1/A & Ex. RW2/A  respectively alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.

6.                 It is admitted case of complainant that she has received claim amount of  Rs.4,07,000/- from OPs qua the present accident. The grievance of complainant is that repairs charges were Rs.5,09,316/- but the OPs paid only Rs.4,07,000/- this it has paid Rs.1,10,000/- less toward the claimed amount.

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OPs has argued that as per surveyor’s report (Annexure R-2 & R-3) complainant has been paid the claim amount and now nothing is payable by the OPs in this matter.

8.                 We have gone through the surveyor’s report wherein it is mentioned that ‘the losses to the said vehicle were found fresh and relevant to the cause  and nature of accident except its front bumper which was found previously repaired from its inner side, LH bracket and it was also found stitched with the help of wire, also the same mentioned as  scratched part in its pre-inspection report, hence, the bumper cost is not considered being repaired losses, its painting charges have been allowed’.   We have also seen photographs of the vehicle (Annexure C-11 to Annexure C-17) in this regard which is corroborated with the aforesaid report. This is also case of the complainant that prior to insurance the bumper of vehicle was having some scratches.

9.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the surveyor’s report and evidence produced on record from both sides, we are of the view that the surveyor’s report is well reasoned and thus having no infirmity in it. As such, the remaining claim as sought by complainant is not maintainable and we do not see any deficiency in service or otherwise on the part of OPs. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:22.05.2024.