State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Company ... vs 1.Sawaran Singh Randhwa Son Of Shri ... on 3 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1001 & 2007 of 2012 Date of Institution: 17.08.2012 &21.08.2012 Date of Decision: 03.09.2012 Appeal No.1001 of 2012 M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. Office Peninsula Corporate Park, Nicholas Pirmal Tower, 9th Floor Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. (Through its authorised Signatory Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Lotus Towers, Ist Floor, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065). Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Sawaran Singh Randhwa son of Shri Kishan Singh Randhwa C/o Raj Super Service Station, Ring Road, Moti Bagh, New Delhi resident of House No.926, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal Haryana. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 71/3, Mile Stone, GT Road, Karnal. Respondent (OP-2) For the Parties: Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant. Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for respondent No.1(Complainant). None for respondent No.2. Appeal No.1007 of 2012 Sawaran Singh Randhwa son of Shri Kishan Singh Randhwa C/o Raj Super Service Station, Ring Road, Moti Bagh, New Delhi resident of House No.926, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal Haryana. Appellant(Complainant) Versus 1. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. Office Peninsula Corporate Park, Nicholas Pirmal Tower, 9th Floor Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. 2. Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 71/3, Mile Stone, GT Road, Karnal. Respondents (OPs) For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant. Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
These two appeals bearing No.1001/2012 and 1007/2012 have arisen out of the order dated 25/06.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Karnal whereby complaint bearing No.545/2011 titled as Sawaran Singh Randhwa versus Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another was accepted with the following observation:-
..In our opinion there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 in not getting the car in question repaired, though the complainant had obtained the cash policy from the respondent No.1. The complainant is entitled to recovery the sum of Rs.8,27,562/- from the OP No.1. The OP No.1 is also burdened with the sum of Rs.30,000/- for the harassment caused to him and for the litigation charges. The Op No.1 shall make the compliance this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this policy. The present complaint is accepted accordingly.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the car bearing registration No.HR-05-AB-0008 of the complainant-Sawaran Singh was insured with the opposite party No.1 Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. through the opposite party No.2 Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vide cover note dated 29.01.2011 for the period 29.01.2011 to 28.01.2012. The insured car damaged in an accident which occurred on the intervening night of 23/24.07.2011at Sardar Patel Chowk, Panchsheel Marg, New Delhi. The car was taken to Raj Super Service Station, Moti Nagar, New Delhi where estimate with respect to the damaged car for its repair was prepared. Information was given to the opposite parties by Fahreheeit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi but no consent was received by Fahreheeit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi from the opposite parties. The policy purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties was a cashless policy and as no consent was received by Fahreheeit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi from the opposite parties, therefore, the vehicle was not repaired. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to the opposite party No.2 on 24.07.2011 but the opposite party No.1 did not register complainants claim despite legal notice issued by the complainant through his Advocate. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
In its reply before the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 took the plea that no claim was submitted by the complainant with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 had not got surveyed the vehicle from an IRDA licensed surveyor because information regarding the alleged accident was not given by the complainant which was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that the complainant had taken six claims from the opposite party No.1 in the previous policy which was valid from 20.01.2010 to 20.01.2011, regarding that an amount of Rs.91,196/- was paid to the complainant. It was stated that the complainant deliberately had not registered the claim with the opposite party No.1. Thus, denying the allegations of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 in its separate written statement stated that an estimate was prepared by Fahreheeit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi with respect to the damaged car of the complainant and the same was seen by the officials of the opposite party No.2.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party No.1 as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 has filed appeal No.1001/2012 for setting aside the impugned order and the complainant has filed appeal No.1007/2012 for enhancement of the compensation.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
While assailing the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 as well as learned counsel for the complainant have reiterated the facts detailed in their pleadings before the District Forum. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 it is contended that the complainant had not submitted claim with the opposite party No.1 and immediate intimation was also not given to the opposite party. District Forum while accepting the complaint has recorded the categorical finding reproduced as under:-
There is no dispute regarding the fact that during the period from 21.1.2010 to 20.1.2011 six claims were filed by the complainant. Regarding that a sum of Rs.91196/- were paid by the OP No.1, to the complainant. All this shows that the complainant was well aware of the fact that a claim was required to be filed by the complainant regarding the present accident. We are satisfied that claim regarding the present accident was lodged by the complainant with the OP No.1 and the intimation regarding the accident was also given by the complainant to the Op No.1 immediately after the accident. A perusal of the insurance policy Ex.C2 also shows that the vehicle in question was insured for a sum of Rs.17,86,000/- which was valid from 29.1.2011 to 28.1.2012. The above said policy was a cash less policy. A perusal of the estimate Ex.C8 issued by the OP No.2 which is present on the life shows that a sum of Rs.8,27,563/- were required for repairing the above said vehicle.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the observation made by the District Forum, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and no case for interference is made out. In our view the complainant has already been awarded adequate compensation.
Hence, both these appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of appeal No.1001/2012 be refunded to the appellant- M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original order/judgment be attached with appeal No.1001/2012 and the certified copy be attached with appeal No.1007/2012.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 03.09.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member