Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 155
Instituted on: 03.03.2020
Decided on: 18.11.2024
Ramdhan (aged 56 years) S/o Ramkala, R/o Village-Bakkarwala, Hasthal, Delhi.
….Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.
……Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashok Deswal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that he is a registered owner of a car bearing registration no. DL-10CC-3741, insured with opposite party vide policy no. 2216003118P105466968 and valid w.e.f. 29.06.2018 to 28.06.2019 under zero depth policy. The said car met with an accident in June 2019 and damaged badly. The complainant immediately informed the officials of the opposite party and the spot survey was conducted by the surveyor of the opposite party company. The vehicle was got repaired from Budhwar Cars Private Limited at Rohtak and an amount of Rs.88,297/- was incurred on the repair of vehicle. The complainant submitted his claim alongwith relevant documents with the opposite party but despite repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite party paid only an amount of Rs.32,000/- and failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.56,297/- to the complainant. A legal notice dated 13.08.2019 and reminder dated 20.01.2020 was also got served upon the opposite party but to no effect. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the remaining claim amount i.e. Rs.56,297/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant besides any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections that Sh. Vipul Kaushik, Surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the net loss of Rs.32,000/- which was paid by the company to the complainant as full and final settlement to the complainant. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. Further no spot survey was conducted becauseon 14.06.2019, the vehicle was parked at Budhwar Car Private Ltd., Sonipat Road, Rohtak. The Surveyor had made the observations that other damages to the car were caused during towing from the spot of accident to the workshop which were not covered and payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In reply on merits, it has beensubmitted by the opposite party that the vehicle was damaged on 11.06.2019 whereas the complainant had informed to the insurance company on 14.06.2019 i.e. after a considerable delay of three days, which is violation of condition no.1 of insurance policy. The Surveyor has assessed the net loss of Rs. 32,000/-and the same has been paid to the complainant as full and final settlement to his satisfaction. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 in his evidence and closed the same on dated 02.06.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex R-1 to Ex. R-2 in his evidence but failed to close his evidence despite availing several opportunities. Hence, the evidence of opposite party was closed by court order on dated 02.04.2024 of this Commission.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the complainant has pleaded that he hassuffered a loss of Rs.88297/- in the vehicle in question. To prove this fact, he has placed on record copy of payment receipts Ex.C2 & Ex.C3. He also placed on record tax invoice of Badhwar Car Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.C4. The bare perusal of these documents shows that complainant spent an amount of Rs.88297/- on the repair of his vehicle in question. It has been pleaded by the complainant that he has received an amount of Rs.32000/- as repair charges and the insurance company has not paid the remaining amount of Rs.56297/- to the complainant till the filing of the present complaint. The complainant has also placed on record other documents i.e.copy of R.C.Ex.C5, insurance policy Ex.C6, legal notice issued by the counsel of the complainant as Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8, another notice Ex.C9, acknowledgementEx.C10 and driving licence of Ankush Ex.C11. On the other hand, the respondent has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A, insurance policy as Ex.R1, surveyor report as Ex.R2. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.As per survey report Ex.R2, the estimated cost of repair is Rs.118250/- but he has assessed only an amount of Rs.32000/- regarding the repair of the vehicle of the complainant. The perusal of this report itself shows that the surveyor has disallowed/not allowed so many parts in his report and has not assessed any amount against the damaged parts. The surveyor failed to mention the reason behind the ‘disallowed and not allowed the amount against these parts’. As per the affidavit filed by the respondent, the complainant signed a voucher as full and final settlement of claim and he also gave assurance that he will not file any case. But the opposite party has not placed on record any satisfaction voucher before this Commission. Meaning thereby the complainant has not signed any satisfaction voucher. Moreover, as per our opinion, we are not agreed with the pleadings of the insurance company because if a consumer pay an additional amount to take the benefits of additional coverage and he has paid Rs.3508/- for the same, then why he will sign satisfactory voucher as full and final settlement. So the objection raised by the insurance company is not justified. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record the tax invoice and receipt of the bills of repair amounting to Rs.88297/-. We have minutely perused the insurance policy placed on record by the complainant as Ex.R1. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3508/- against the head ‘Nil depreciation without excess’. So as per our opinion, he is entitled for whole amount spent by him on the repair of vehicle i.e Rs.88297/-.The opposite party has already paid an amount of Rs.32000/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.56297/- to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.56297/-(Rupees fifty six thousand two hundred and ninety seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.03.2020 to till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.11.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
.......................................
Vijender Singh, Member
