Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/111/2018

Nishant Sardana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dherj Bhatia

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. RBT/CC/111

 Instituted on:   27.03.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     15.12.2021

 

Nishant Sardana son of Shri Rajinder Sardana aged about 22 years, resident of House No.2293, Anand Nagar, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Ltd. SCO No.36-37, 1^st & IInd Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala.

2.     Noor Motor, Near Ajit Banquet Hall, Rajpura-Patiala Road, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala through its authorized person.

             ….Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  : Shri Dheeraj Bhatia, Adv.

For OP No.1             : Shri Amit Gupta, Adv.

For OP No.2             : Shri Atamjeet Kahlon, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

S.P.Sood, President:

1.             This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Shri Nishant Sardana (hereinafter to be referred  as ‘complainant’) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that he availed general insurance policy for his car make Hyundai i20 Asta bearing registration number PB-11-AR-0269. However, said car met with an accident on 27.12.2016 following which he (complainant) immediately informed officials of OP number 1 insurance company and thereafter claim number 3117000880 was raised against its policy number 2010262311006229 with OP number 1.  Further it was also averred that his above said policy was cashless and was to remain valid from 3.11.2016 to 2.11.2017. However, ironically despite complainant having paid huge amount of premium, he had to wait for long five month for getting his damaged car repaired and this is how he was deprived of the services of  his vehicle for this entire period as a result of this careless act and conduct of both of Ops and, therefore, both of them could well said to be deficient in their services as complainant was not able to make the optimum use of this car for so long.  Further complainant has averred that when the needful was not done by the Ops despite his repeated requests then he was constrained to issue a legal notice served upon the Ops on 25.5.2017 and it was only thereafter that Ops woke up from the deep slumber and informed complainant that in fact OP number 2 was in the process of arranging new airbags for his car, which was taking slightly long and also assured him to complete the job work of repair of his vehicle shortly. Even thereafter when complainant happened to visit the garage of OP number 2 and happened to look at the airbags the same were found to be outdated as were manufactured in the year of 2010 and 2014 but when complainant confronted OP number 2 as to why were they going to install these so old airbags latter disclosed to him that in fact it was at the behest of the surveyor appointed by OP number 1 that they were going to install those airbags.  Further complainant has also alleged that in fact he had to pay heavy amount from his own side to OP number 2 but still his car was not repaired properly.  Clarifying this matter further complainant has also alleged that after the necessary repairs were carried out, the car used to make several unwanted noises and when complainant confronted OP number 2 mechanic and his owner regarding the same, they advised him that complainant should use this car and drive for a few hundred kilometer after which these noises will subside of their own.  Since complainant was apprehensive about this assurance so he preferred to take second opinion from some other mechanic who also suggested him that nothing such as assured will happen in fact all these noises were on account of improper repairs of his car being carried out by the garage people and also advised him that he should raise this issue with them.  This is how despite OP number 2 having received Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant over and above the claim amount, which they received directly from the insurance company still his car was not repaired properly, therefore, both these Ops could well said to be deficient in their services.  Before concluding, complainant also averred that when his request before the Ops were not heard by the concerned person then he was left with no other alternative except to file the present complaint seeking directions against both of these Ops to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and severally on account of mental harassment and also for any other relief which the Commission thinks appropriate.

3.             Upon notice, OP number 1, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited contested this complaint on account of maintainability and also averred that though complainant had purchased a private car package policy number 2010262311006229 for 3.11.2016 to 2.11.2017 pertaining to his car with registration number PB-11-AR-0269 but the said contract was subject to various terms and conditions of the policy itself.  Further OP number 1 had also admitted that the claim with regard to accidental loss of the insured car was intimated by complainant bearing number 3117000880 and immediately thereafter answering OP number 1 deputed surveyor for survey of the vehicle , who in turn submitted his report as per the terms and conditions of the policy and immediately thereafter his claim was processed wherein the liability of the answering OP was assessed for Rs.1,07,168/- after deducting compulsory excess of Rs.1000/- and the same was duly paid, therefore, no further monetary liability remains with the answering OP number 1.  That being so, how the answering OP number 1 could said to be deficient in their services.  Further it was also averred that whatever amount was assessed to be admissible under the policy in question, the same has already been paid directly to garage owner on behalf of complainant.  Likewise, it was also alleged that it was the complainant who himself chose to get his damaged vehicle repaired from a particular mechanic and as such the entire repair was carried out as per the choice of complainant from OP number 2 working under the name and style of Noor Motors, Patiala Road Rajpura, therefore, if the above said vehicle of complainant was not repaired as per the satisfaction of complainant then that is something between complainant on one hand and said OP number 2 on the other, as such, there was no need with the complainant to have involved answering OP number 1, insurance company in this dispute especially when the latter has already paid Rs.1,07,168/- to the garage people on behalf of complainant. In the same context, it was also averred that complainant took delivery of his vehicle from the said garage after his complete satisfaction, therefore, now complainant has lost every right to raise objection against the alleged improper repairs carried out by OP number 2.  In the end, OP number 1 again controverted all other averments of the complaint and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made by this insurance company.

4.             OP number 2 also contested this complaint pointing out that complaint is false and frivolous and the same has been filed just to extract easy money and also to harass and humiliate them.  Further this complaint was also stated to be bad for want of cause of action to file the same.  Further, other averments put forth by complainant regarding his having purchased the private car insurance policy was said to be matter of record having nothing to do with the answering OP number 2.  Further it was also added that in fact it was on 27.12.2016 that complainant brought his accidental car to his garage alongwith surveyor. It was only as per the consent of complainant and that of the said surveyor of OP number 1 that the car was repaired as per asking and instructions of both of them i.e. complainant as well as the said surveyor by installing brand new spare parts, therefore, it is palpably false what complainant is alleging that his car was not repaired properly and the same use to make unwanted noises. In fact, OP number 2 carried out the repairs of this car as per instructions of complainant as well as that of the surveyor.  There was no question of complainant having been harassed or having experienced any such mental agony on account of their act and conduct as alleged.  Likewise, it was also averred that whatever amount was paid by complainant to the answering OP number 2,  the same was on account of depreciation of the various parts which were fitted in this vehicle, otherwise no other amount being the cost of repairs was paid by him. Besides this, other averments of the complaint were also denied stoutly and ultimately prayer for dismissal of this complaint was made on account of OP number 2 being not deficient in its services towards complainant at all.

5.             After completion of the pleadings both the parties were called upon to lead their oral and documentary evidence. During this process, complainant tendered his sworn  affidavit as Ex.C-A alongwith copy of insurance policy Ex.C-1.  Further smart card issued to the complainant by OP number 1 insurance company was tendered as Ex.C-2, various tax invoices vide which OP number 1 had  purchased various spare parts from supplier were proved as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-11, photocopy of bills issued to OP number 1  relating to this vehicle were tendered as Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14. Similarly, other tax invoices vide which OP number 2 purchased several other parts installed in this vehicle belonging to complainant were produced as Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-20. Other documents Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22 were brought on record being the picture allegedly clicked by complainant of the air bags which were fitted in the car during its repairs, copy of legal notice Ex.C-23 with postal receipt Ex.C-24 and Ex.C-25 and account statement of complainant with his banker HDFC Bank Limited Ex.C-26 whereby he intended to show that he transferred a sum of Rs.1,00,000 on 27.6.2017 in favour of OP number 2, Noor Motors.

6.             On the other hand, OP number 1 tendered sworn affidavit of Shri  Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd as Ex.OP-A and also affidavit of surveyor Shri Gurcharan Singh as Ex.OP-B, smart card also relied upon by complainant as Ex.C-2 was also tendered by OP number 1 as Ex.OP-1 alongwith copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-2 and claim form submitted by complainant as Ex.OP-3 and survey report Ex.OP-4 and vehicle repair satisfaction voucher issued by complainant under his own signatures showing of his having taken back the car from garage of OP number 2 as Ex.OP-5.

7.             Besides this, no evidence was led by OP number 2, Noor Motors.

8.             We have heard contentions put forth by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record with their valuable assistance.

9.             At the very outset, it is significant to note that although complainant has alleged deficiency in services meted out to him at the hands of both of the Ops with whom he had to deal after his car met with an accident on 27.12.2016 which was earlier got insured by him with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and has sought a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid from both of the Ops jointly and severally, however if we go through the contents of this complaint minutely, we also find some traces whereby complainant has alleged that the claim lodged by him against the accidental loss suffered by his car was duly paid by insurance company OP number 1. However, as the said amount was not sufficient to completely off set the whole expenditure incurred on the repair of his car i.e. why he was also made to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his own pocket which he did on 27.6.2017 directly through bank transfer in favour of OP number 2.  These observations evolves from the admitted facts of this case as to how complainant being the owner of car bearing registration number PB-11-AR-0269 was got insured by him from OP number 1 as the said car met with an accident on 27.12.2016, information of this mishap was immediately given to the insurance people, who in turn had appointed surveyor with a direction to submit his survey report to assess the loss  and thereafter the said car in question were brought to the garage of OP number 2 on 27.12.2016 itself after complainant chose to get his vehicle repaired from these people.  Even complainant could also not deny emphatically the fact as alleged by OP number 1 that the said cover of insurance was provided to complainant strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy and if we peruse the contents of Ex.C-1 or that of Ex.OP-2 which happen to be the same document, we find that as per one of the stipulation, insurance company was supposed to reimburse the depreciated value of the parts although new parts were fitted during the repair of accidental car.  Likewise, complainant could not dare to say that during the repair work only second hand parts were used for his car, so, therefore, what has been alleged by OP number 2 that all brand new parts were used for carrying out the necessary repairs of this car was true but as it was only the depreciated value of these parts which the garage people received from the insurance company worth Rs.1,07,168/- only that is why rest of the same was borne by complainant. Even complainant has also not objected to how and why loss to his vehicle was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,07,168/- by the surveyor as is evident from sworn affidavit of Shri Gurcharan Singh, brought on record as Ex.OP-B and his report Ex.OP-4, therefore, in case complainant had to pay additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the garage owner that was not something unusual rather the same was simply on account of the fact that since the spare parts used for repair his vehicle were brand new but the insurance company assessed the loss after deducting the depreciation of these parts as per the services, which had already been rendered by these spare parts to the complainant from the date of his purchase of this vehicle till it got involved in this accident. Several documents brought on record by complainant  himself as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-11 and further Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-20 proves to the hilt the contention of OP number 2 regarding its having used only the brand new parts for repairing the vehicle of complainant, so for these reasons, when as per terms and conditions of the policy, insurance company was liable for reimbursing accidental damage to this vehicle after deducting depreciation, so this exercise having been carried out perfectly as per terms and conditions of the policy, then how either of the OPs could said to be deficient in their services towards complainant. Likewise, no objection has been raised by complainant as to why the insurance company has repudiated his claim arbitrarily or for some unjustified grounds rather in the case in hand it is admitted fact that the claim of complainant has already been admitted to the extent of loss as assessed by the surveyor. In fact, in such like cases, it is not under the purview of this Commission to look into the propriety or adequacy of the procedure adopted by surveyor to arrive at a figure depicting the loss payable by the insurance company.

10.           So far as the other allegations of the complainant regarding repair of his vehicle was not carried out properly is concerned, when it is none other but it is complainant himself who took delivery of the vehicle after being repaired by its mechanic of his choice by expressing his complete satisfaction for the repair being carried out to his vehicle as evolves from Ex.OP-5.  In view of the contents of this Ex.OP-5, all objections of the complainant pales into insignificance and stands duly repelled for having been raised simply for the heck of raising the same, therefore, taking this complaint from any angel no deficiency on account of either of the parties is found to have been made out and as such, we don’t hesitate to conclude that the present complaint is found to be devoid of any merit, hence the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

11.           A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                December 15, 2021.

 

                        (Sarita Garg)    (Vinod Kumar Gulati)     (S.P. Sood)

     Member             Member                    President