Date of filing:- 14/03/2023.
Date of Order:-18/03/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 2022.
Reddy Sri-hari Sharma, S/o R.V.Prabhakar Sharma, aged about 34(thirty four) years, R/o. Parmanpur Firm, Po. Tope, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh at present residing at Om Binayak Industry, Shop No. 25, near over-bridge, Po. Jamurda, Ps/Dist. Bargarh ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- The Manager, Chola Mandalam, M/s General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office at Dare House, II Floor, No. 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai-066001(Tamilnadu).
- Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, Authorized dealer of Hundai Motor India Ltd., in the name and style of “Laxmi Moto World L.L.P., Srihari Nagar” P.O. Gudesira, Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.N.Padhi, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party Ni.1(one):- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.18/03/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a Hyndai Motor Car GI-10 bearing Regd No. OD-17-V-3999 in the last part of year 2020 from the Opposite Party No.2(two). The said car was insured with the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the liability covered from Dt. 25-11-2020 to 24-11-2021 own damage and at that time the value of car was Rs. 6,75,000/-(Rupees six lakh seventy five thousand)only vide Policy No. 3311/00397654/000100. The policy was insured again on dt. 23-11-2021 Opposite Party No.2(two) given to Opposite Party No.1(one) bearing Policy No. 3408/00096115/000/00 and the policy covered from period 25-11-2021 to 24-11-2022. In the said policy the authorized officer of the Opposite Party No.1(one) has mentioned the value of car as Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh)only and took the signatures of the Complainant on different papers along with blank papers. During the validity period of Insurance Policy bearing No. 3408/00096115/000/00 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on dt. 26-03-2022 at about 8.23 AM, near Beldihi under Rairakhol Police Station of Sambalpur District. The said facts have been reported to the policy Rairakhol Police Station on dt. 26-03-2022 at about 8.20 P.M. The Complainant also intimated to the Opposite Party No.1(one) about the accident and the claim is registered as Ref No. 3408031202. The Complainant after accident brought the aforesaid vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2(two) and the Opposite Party No.2(two) has estimated the cost of repairing as Rs. 4,17,650/-(Rupees four lakh seventeen thousand six hundred fifty)only. The Opposite Party No.1(one) compelled the Complainant to receieve Rs. 3,90,000/-(Rupees three lakh ninety thousand)only. The Complainant on dt. 15-05-2022, has reestimated the said damaged car of the Complainant in World Car Care Centre, Barahagoda who has estimated cost for repairing as Rs. 2,77,520/-(Rupees two lakh seventy seven thousand five hundred twenty)only but the Opposite Party No.1(one) was reluctant to pay as the World Car Care Centre is not an authorized repairer under the Opposite Party No.1(one), which proves that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) in collusion has done unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainant issued pleader notice to the Opposite Party No.1(one) but the Opposite Party No.1(one) remained silent.
Being aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Parties the Complainant filed this complaint before this Commission praying that Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs. 4,87,520/-(Rupees four lakh eighty seven thousand five hundred twenty)only as reparing cost, compensation and litigation expenses.
2) The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed its version and admitted that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the General Insurance Company used to insure vehicles by taking premium and accordingly the vehicle car of the Complainant bearing Regd No. OD-17-V-3999 having validity from 25-11-2021 to 24-11-2022. After one year of insurance during the commencement of the insurance policy the value of the car is mentioned as Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh)only not Rs. 6,75,000/-(Rupees six lakh seventy five thousand)only. The Opposite Party after getting information from Complainant about the alleged accident taking into consideration of the total loss of the vehicle basing on the estimate of Opposite Party No.2(two) after deduction of the salvage offered the Complainant to accept Rs. 3,80,000/-(Rupees three lakh eighty thousand)only as compensation and intimated the said fact to the Complainant through letter vide Registered post Dt. 13-05-2022 but the Complainant did not respond. The Opposite Party tried to settle the claim by instructing the Complainant vide Registered letter to give his consent but the Complainant did not prefer to give consent, hence the claim cannot be settled. The case to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.1(one)
3) The case of Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not appear before this Commission to file its version. Hence Opposite Party is set ex-parte.
4) Perused the documents as well as oral submission filed by the Parties and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in service ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No. 1(one)
5) It is an admitted fact that the the vehicle bearing Regd No. OD-17-V-3999 is insured with the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide policy No. 3408/00096115/000/00, the insured period being from 25-11-2021 to 24-11-2022, the IDV of the vehicle being Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh)only. During the period of validity of insurance the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and the as per the instruction of Opposite Party No.1(one), the aforesaid vehicle repairing cost was estimated in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2(two) who estimated the cost as Rs. 4,17,650/-(Rupees four lakh seventeen thousand six hundred fifty)only. The Complainant dissatisfied with above estimate, reestimated in another workshop who estimated the cost of repairing as Rs. 2,75,520/-(Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand five hundred twenty)only.
The Complainant not agreed for treating his claim as total loss and as the reestimated loss is less then the surveyor report, it reveals that the aforesaid vehicle is in repairable condition and the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-V-3999 can not be treated as total loss.
6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vrs Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787” held that “Surveyor's report is not the last and final word. It is not that Sacrosanct that it can not be departed from ; it is not conclusive. The approved Surveyor's report may be the basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer not insured.
7) Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed the settle the claim as per the reestimated cost of Rs. 2,75,520/-(Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand five hundred twenty)only. Non settlement of claim when the insurance is under the validity period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.2(two) is not liable for deficiency in service caused by Opposite Party No.1(one).
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2(two)
8) As per supra discussion, the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
Accordingly it is ordered.
O R D E R
9) The complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.1(one) and dismissed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay Rs. 2,75,520/-(Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand five hundred twenty)only towards repairing charge of vehicle bearing Regd No. OR-17-D-3999 along with Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses within one month of this order, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
10) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.18/03/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and disposed of.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
