Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/370

Dr.Tarun Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Works Manager Tri city Autos - Opp.Party(s)

T.N.Taneja

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 370 dated 10.08.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 15.02.2023.

 

Dr.Tarun Mehta @ Tannu Taneja wife of Dr. Neeraj Taneja, Resident of B-11/1344 (new) and B-9/542 (old), Old Civil Hospital Road, Ludhiana-141008.                                                                                .…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Works Manager, tri City Autos, Zirakpur, Punjab.
2. Godigit GIC, Shop No.3, New Rajinder Nagar, Jalandhar City-144001 (P.B.)
3. Mr. Sudhir Tiwari, Central Motor Claims Godigit GIC, Atlantis, 95, 4^th B Cross Road, Koramangala Industrial Layout, 5^th Block, Bengaluru Karnataka-560095.
4. Mr. Narayan Rao, Senior Claims Manager Godigit GIC, Atlantis, 95, 4^th B Cross Road, Koramangala Industrial Layout, 5^th Block, Bengaluru Karnataka-560095.

                                                                                      ....Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. T.N. Taneja, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2 to OP4             :         Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant got insured her Swift Desire/VDI AGS car bearing registration No.PB10-CM-0330 from the opposite parties vide policy No.D024562330/19102020 dated 19.10.2020 on premium under the plan coverage policy having validity till 24.10.2021. In the period of own damage cover, policy of third party liability, period of policy for PA Owner-Driver the entire expenses would e paid to the complainant. The complainant submitted that she went to market for purchasing for festival season at Patiala Chowk, Zirakpur and due to heavy traffic she applied sudden brakes to save passerby, suddenly four wheeler deriver driving the vehicle recklessly/carelessly in speed stuck into the rear portion of car of the complainant. The complainant parked the vehicle on the side of the road but the driver of four wheeler fled away from the spot. The said accident caused dent on the dikkee and damaged the bumper with locks broken of bumper as well as dikkee. The complainant called her husband Dr. Neeraj Taneja on his phone who phoned to opposite party no.4 and sent emails to opposite party No.2 and 3. The car was dropped in workshop of opposite party No.1 on 05.11.2020 and information was given to opposite party No.4. On 10.11.2020, the officials of opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that they have not received any approval from the insurance company. After repeatedly conversation with Ms. Shivangi Sanjeev Kholi, she assured the complainant on what’sapp to get the car repaired and the approval will be sent soon. The complainant spentRs.16,331/- on repair of the car and closed the claim which was rejected on the ground “Cause of Loss Mismatch”. The complainant further submitted that she being layman was not aware regarding the technicalities and the fact are that the car met with accident on 05.11.2020 and loss was occurred due to accident. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties many times to disburse the bill amount but they are lingering the matter on one pretext or another. It amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which has caused monetary loss of Rs.16,331/- and mental harassment to the complainant. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay the bill amount of Rs.16,331/- along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party No.1 through registered post on 19.08.2021 but none turned up on behalf of opposite party No.1 and as such, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.11.2021.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 to 4 appeared and filed joint written statement by assailing the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint, lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, misuse of process of law by the complainant and suppression of material facts by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 to 4 alleged that the complainant obtained policy No.D024562330 w.e.f. 25.10.2020 to 24.10.2021 for the vehicle No.PB-10-CM-0330. On receipt of the claim intimation regarding loss dated 05.11.2020, they immediately deputed Miss. Shubhangi Koli, Surveyor & Loss Assessor who inspected the vehicle and submitted report as per which the reported damages do not correlate with cause and nature of loss as the complainant had described at the time of claim intimation. Thereafter, the opposite parties scrutinized the claim documents and their officials applied mind and wrote letter dated 13.11.2020, operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

We went through the documents you have submitted and here is the summary of our findings of your claim.

1. No correlation with Cause of Loss: As per the surveyor report/inspection conducted, the reported damages do not correlate to cause & nature of loss you had described at the time of claim intimation.

Conclusion: Fro available information & document placed on record, as of now you “Claim is not approved” as we do not have the full facts. And unfortunately, in insurance, suppressing any details is a violation of the fundamental insurance contract, which also means, we are not liable for any further losses to the vehicle/consequential loses, parking charges or rent etc.

Hence, we request you to provide the details of the claimed loss with supporting documents within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter. Failing to do so, we will have to close your claim as no claim.

Opposite party No.2 to 4 also alleged that the damages are old and pre-existing in nature and it is an admitted fact on the part of the complainant that the vehicle had previously met with an accident and after careful observation of the dicky paint, same is different compared to other paint of other body parts. The opposite parties also denied any deficiency in service on their part.

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 to 4 reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections and have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of insurance policy valid from 25.10.2020 to 24.10.2021, Ex. C2, Ex. C3 and Ex. C5 are the copies of emails, Ex. C4 is the copy of job card retail-tax invoice dated 13.11.2021, Ex. C6 is the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No.PB10-CM-0330, Ex. C7 is the copy of driving licence of the complainant, Ex. C8 is the legal notice dated 22.03.2021, Ex. C9 is the copy of liability computation sheet, Ex. C10 is the photograph of the car and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.2 to 4 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Omkar, Manager of the opposite parties as well as affidavit Ex. RB of Ms. Shubhangi Sanjeev Koli, Surveyor along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of insurance policy documents, Ex. R2 is the copy of preliminary survey report, Ex. R3 is the repudiation letter dated 13.11.2020, Ex. R4 to Ex. R8 are the copies of emails, Ex. R9 is the copies of photographs of the vehicle consisting of 15 pages, Ex. R10 is the copy of preliminary survey report and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

7.                Undisputably, the complainant is a policy holder of policy No.D024562330/19102020 having validity till 24.10.2021. During the subsistence of the insurance coverage, she met with an accident in the area of Patiala Chowk, Zirakpur resulting in damage to the car. Repair work was undertaken at Tri City Autos and job card retail/tax invoice was produced as Ex. C4. The claim was lodged by the complainant upon which Ms. Shivangi Sanjeev Koli, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to submit the report. Her preliminary surveyor report Ex. R10 was relied upon by the opposite parties along with 27 photographs under the head of Ex. R9. According to the surveyor, the reported damages do not correlate to cause & nature of loss which had described at the time of claim intimation. Relying upon the report, the opposite parties closed the claims as “No Claim” on the basis of suppression of details which was treated as violation of fundamental insurance contract. The complainant has also relied upon the exchange of various emails between the complainant and the surveyor when the settlement of the claim was under process.

8.                Perusal of job card Ex. C4 depicts that the parts were repaired from the rear side of the vehicle whereas the photograph Ex. C10 clearly depicts that there is a handful of damage on the front side of the car especially bonnet of the car. Photographs of rear side of the vehicle do not show any such damage but  only brews and scratches are there. It all show just superficial damage on the rear side of the car whereas photograph Ex. C10 shows damage/dent on the bonnet of the car on front side. These documents lend credence to the version of the surveyor that there is mismatch of the version of the complainant with regard to manner of the accident divulged in the claim intimation. So the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and the compliant of the complainant is hereby dismissed.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.               Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

Dr. Tarun Mehta Vs Tri City Autos                              CC/21/370

Present:       Sh. T.N. Taneja,  Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate for OP2 to OP4.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.