IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 24.06.2013 Date of hearing: 15.01.2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 374/2013 IN THE MATTER OF MR. TENZING THARDOE, R/O 47, NEW DELHI CAMP, NEW ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI – 110054.

(Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate)

…Complainant VERSUS RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., C-1, 3^RD FLOOR, KRISHNA PARK, NEAR JANAK PURI, WEST METRO STATION, NEW DELHI – 18.

(Through: Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate)

…Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: None for the Complainant Mr. Navneet Kumar, counsel for OP appeared on VC.

Mr. Sharan, counsel for the Opposite Party.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed for the following reliefs:

“i. May kindly be please to direct the respondent to compensate the complainant for his damages and sufferings as mentioned in para no-14:

Para -14 That in totality the respondent is squarely liable to pay a sum of Rs. 29,24,350 (Rs. Twenty nine lacs twenty four thousand three hundred fifty only) and Rs. 55,500 (Rs. Fifty-five thousand five hundred only per month from the month of march 2013 along with an interest of Rs 248 per annum.

ii. Cost of the present complaint may also be awarded in favor of the complainant and against the respondents.”

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 15.09.2012, the Complainant insured his vehicle (Bus) bearing registration no. DLIP C 4240 with the Opposite Party under policy no. 313000175722 for a sum insured of Rs. 22,50,000/- for the period starting from 15.09.2012 till midnight of 22.09.2013. Thereafter, on 18.02.2013, the insured vehicle met with an accident at a bypass near Kala Pul while traveling from McLeod Ganj towards Dharamshala. The body and chassis of the said vehicle were severely damaged due to the accident. Accordingly, the Complainant immediately informed the police, who investigated the matter. The Complainant also informed the Opposite Party about the said accident and filed his claim under claim no. 2131020209 under the aforementioned policy. Subsequently, the Opposite Party appointed a surveyor, namely Mr. Amarjeet Singh, to survey the damage to the vehicle.

3. After a week, the said vehicle was brought to JCBL, Ladu, Punjab, for repair work. The technicians from Ashok Leyland Company visited the said premises and surveyed the vehicle for chassis repair and a technician from Wheels India Ltd. also visited the workplace for air suspension repair work. The surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party also visited the JCBL Ltd. premises to estimate the damage to the vehicle.

4. On 28.02.2013, Mr. Rajbir Rana, Body Service, JCBL, provided an estimated/quotation report but the final estimate was subject to dismantling the body from the vehicle. On 07.03.2013, Ashok Leyland also provided an estimate, which was also subject to dismantling the body from the chassis as there was a crack in the chassis of the vehicle. Therefore, based on the said reports, the Complainant contacted the surveyor, who granted permission for the removal of body parts and assured that he would also be present at the time of dismantling the body from the chassis.

5. M/s JCBL partially dismantled the body shell for the inspection of damages to the chassis. However, the technicians of Ashok Leyland Company informed that for proper inspection and repair of the chassis, the body shell of the said vehicle must be completely removed. Additionally, the technicians at JCBL Ltd. informed the Complainant that if the body parts were fully removed from the chassis, the repair cost would increase and the body shell warranty would not apply in case t