| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 169 of 27-06-2018 Decided on : 22-04-2022 Amandeep Sharma S/o Sh. Megh Raj Sharma R/o Nar Singh Colony, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant
Versus IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019, through its Managing Director/Chairman. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Nirankari Bhawan, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Navneet Kataria, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Amandeep Sharma (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., & another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is registered owner of Honda Amaze car bearing registration No. PB-03AG-6771 which was duly insured with the opposite parties vide policy/cover Note No. ITG/82455018 for the period from 9.3.2018 to 8.3.2019. It is alleged that unfortunately on 30.5.2018 the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at about 8.30 AM and was badly damaged. After accident, the complainant took the said car to the workshop of Deep Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. Mansa Road, Bathinda at about 11.05 AM and intimation regarding accident of the said vehicle was also given to opposite party No. 2. The complainant got prepared estimate regarding the damage caused to the car in question and estimate of Rs. 53,751/- was prepared by M/s Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. In the mean time, Surveyor of the opposite parties namely Mr. Chander Parkash also visited the workshop of M/s Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, where the car of the complainant was lying parked. The said surveyor prepared the estimate about Rs. 8,000/- regarding damage caused to the car although the car of the complainant has been damaged badly and more than Rs.50,000/- is required to be spent for the repair of the car. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties refused to pay the said amount for the repair of the car in question and the car of the complainant is lying in the workshop of M/s Deep Automobiles Pvt . Ltd in accidental condition. The complainant approached the opposite parties number of times and requested them to admit his rightful claim, but there was no response from the side of the opposite parties It is also alleged that the purpose for which the complainant had got insured vehicle with the opposite parties has not been fulfilled as the opposite parties have received premium but now the opposite parties are dilly dallying the payment of amount of repair. Due to act and conduct of the opposite parties, as the opposite parties have failed to comply with its own terms and conditions, the complainant suffered mental tension. It is further alleged, that during this period, the complainant being doctor, visited his practice place by hiring taxi and incurred expenses to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Due to act and conduct and adamant attitude of the opposite parties, complainant claims compensation for his sufferings to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of repair charges as per estimates and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 50,000/- as treavelling expenses. The opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that the complainant has not produced the vehicle for survey while the vehicle was under repair for assessing the loss and has not submitted the original repair bills and payment receipts. Further the complainant has not submitted cancelled cheque/pass book copy for payment of admissible claim, if any. The opposite parties written letters dated 12.06.2018 & 18.06.2018 to the complainant in this regard. Even in the present complaint, the complainant has only submitted the estimate and no repair bills have been produced on file. Therefore, the complaint is premature and the opposite parties unable to decide claim of the complainant, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further legal objections are that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties and that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been pleaded that insurance was strictly subject to terms and conditions thereof. The opposite parties denied that the complainant has incurred any loss of Rs.53,758/- and that the car has been badly damaged or requires repair of more than Rs.50,000/- as alleged. The opposite parties have pleaded that on receipt of intimation, the opposite parties deputed Surveyor Mr. Chander Parkash who conducted survey and assessed the loss at Rs.6292.46 as per terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor allowed the repair of left rear door and left running board only, and the other damages claimed by the insured are disallowed by the surveyor, because the damages are not justified in nature and do not co-relate with the reported cause of loss. As per survey report, it is clear that the complainant demanded replacement of parts as well as repair thereof which is not permissible in accordance with law. Further, the loss was claimed wrongly too much on the higher side. The complainant did not get the vehicle repaired nor submitted the repair bill for deciding the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. It has also been pleaded that if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to any relief, only in that case, the complainant may be directed to comply with the requirements of the opposite parties mentioned in letters dated 12.06.2018 and 18.06.2018 and to submit repair bills, so that the claim may be decided as per terms and conditions of the policy. All other averments of the complainant have been denied by the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-1), photocopy of estimate (Ex. C-2), photocopy of R.C. (Ex. C-3), photocopy of motor claim form (Ex. C-4), photocopy of DL (Ex. C-5), postal receipts (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), Tow affidavits of complainant (Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9), photocopy of policy (Ex. C-10), photocopy of photographs (Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 23-8-18 of Rajiv Ranjan (Ex. OP-1/1), affidavit dated 23-8-18 of Chander Parkash (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of letters (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of claim form (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of survey report (Ex. OP-1/6) and photocopy of policy with terms and conditions (Ex. OP-1/7). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, there is no dispute regarding insurance and accident of insured vehicle of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that more than Rs. 50,000/- was required to be spent on repair of the accidental vehicle. The complainant has placed on file estimate (Ex. C-2) to the tune of Rs. 53,751/- of Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. The opposite parties have placed on file Motor Final Survey Report of Sh. Chander Parkash (Ex. OP-1/6). A perusal of this document reveals that the said surveyor has assessed the loss amounting to Rs. 6,292.46. The surveyor has mentioned in his report that “Insured demanded front bumper new, front left fender repair, left mirror new, front left door repair, rear left door repair and left running board repair, but allowed left rear door for repair and left running board for repair and other parts front bumper, front left fender, left mirror, front left door were not considered with reported cause, hence, were not recommended”. The complainant has not placed on file bills of final repair or proof of any payment made to Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., on account of repair of accidental vehicle in question meaning thereby that the complainant has failed to produce on file any evidence to prove actual expenditure incurred by him on the repair of his accidental car. The aforesaid surveyor has also mentioned in this report that he sent two reminders to complainant to submit the bills of repair, but he did not furnish the same. The surveyor allowed the repair of left rear door and left running board only and other damages claimed by complainant, as per surveyor, were not found justified in nature as they did not coincide and co-relate with reported cause of loss. The cause of loss reported by complainant was that a vehicle hit the left side of car while crossing. There is nothing to show that the surveyor was bias or his report is not correct. Hon'ble National Commission in case of Narinder Kumar Joshi Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited IV 2017 CPJ 366 (NC) has observed that the insurance claim is to be settled on the basis of surveyor report unless legitimate reasons are pointed out for not accepting the surveyor report. Similarly, in case of Sri Venkatshwar Sindikat Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Anr., II (2010) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the surveyors were appointed under statutory provisions and they are linked between insurer and insured when question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become base for settlement of claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by the insured. Thus, keeping in view the above settled law and evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant failed to prove on file the bills of final repair or proof of any payment made for repair of insured vehicle. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 22-04-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
