Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member
Vinod Bhardwaj —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2376 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 25/05/2017 in Appeal No. 922/2013 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 29.8.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.S. Rathour, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive consumer from preferring claim with respect to deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage caused to engine of car due to rain water—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—Mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive consumer from preferring claim with respect to deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of amount paid in default of service rendered—Despite execution of discharge voucher, consumer may be in a position to satisfy Tribunal or Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or like—Petitioner insured has failed to produce any material or any evidence to show that he had ever objected or protested against settlement of insurance claim at Rs.1,30,550/- nor have been able to show that discharge voucher was signed under protest or any compulsion or duress on fraud and misrepresentation—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 25.05.2017 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 922 of 2013.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased a Skoda Laura No.DL-9CV-5050 which was insured with respondent/OP-1 for the period from 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2012. The said car was comprehensively insured on zero depreciation basis. It was alleged that on 09.09.2011, the petitioner was going to his office at Karkardooma Courts, due to heavy rain there was a traffic jam and water had collected on the road in the under pass near Friends Colony, Shahdara. That the water level came and the engine of the car suddenly seized. The petitioner/complainant contacted the helpline of respondent 1/OP-1 and as per their direction he did not try to start the engine. The car was taken out from the water by pushing it manually and was taken to the workshop of respondent-2/OP-2 by a loading trailer hired from M/s Sita Breakdown Services on payment of Rs.2,800/-. The petitioner/complainant had also lodged a claim request with respondent no.1/OP-1 vide request No.620375323 on 09.09.2011. Surveyor, Mr Yameen contacted the petitioner/complainant on mobile and desired to inspect the accidental vehicle, but did not turn up on the said date. The petitioner/complainant contacted the said surveyor after a day or two. He had assured that the vehicle would be inspected as per his own convenience and presence of petitioner/complainant was not necessary. On 15.09.2011, the petitioner/complainant contacted respondent-2/OP-2 to enquire if the repair work had started. The Workshop Manager replied that the requisite approval had not been received from the respondent/OP-1. The petitioner/complainant even sent an email on the same date to respondent/OP-1 and requested for the start of repair work but nothing was done. On 19.09.2011, the petitioner/complainant also sent an email to IRDA. The petitioner/complainant also sent a reminder to the respondent/OP-1 on 20.09.2011. On 20.09.2011, Mr Ramnish Tangri, Provincial Associate, falsely stated that he had given the approval for repair of the car as per the policy coverage. He further, informed that the repair for the damage caused to the engine was due to hydrostatic locking and hence, was not allowed. The respondent/OP-1 did not convey the contents of the inspection report to petitioner/complainant till 20.09.2011. A false report had been prepared by the officials of respondent/OP-1 without proper inspection of the vehicle in connivance with respondent-2/OP-2 in order to extort money from the petitioner/complainant. Respondent/OP-1 did not give the approval to repair the engine with malafide intention. On 24.09.2011, the petitioner/complainant sent a legal notice to respondent/OP-1 for repair of the car. There was negligence on the part of respondent/OP-1 in not giving the approval for repair of the car. A bill for Rs.2,05,515/- for repair of the car was raised by respondent-2/OP-2. Out of which Rs.75,000/- was paid by the petitioner/complainant under protest. The petitioner/complainant had taken delivery of the car under protest and thereafter a claim was filed before the District Forum seeking direction for payment of a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh for causing mental pain and agony, sum of Rs.5.00 lakh towards the professional loss, Rs.75,000/- which he had paid from his pocket for repairs, Rs.30,000/- as conveyance charges and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Reply was filed by the respondent/OP-1 wherein it was contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The claim was received on 09.09.2011 and Mr Ramnish Tangri was appointed as a surveyor. The surveyor on inspection of the vehicle had assessed the liability of the respondent/OP-1 to the tune of Rs.1,30,515/- which was duly paid to the respondent-2/OP-2. T
