Haryana

Sonipat

142/2014

SATYA PAL TYAGI S/O KANSHI RAM TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PAWAN KUMAR

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.142 of 2014

                                Instituted on:22.05.2014

                                Date of order:19.08.2015

 

Satya Pal Tyagi son of Kanshi Ram Tyagi, resident of village Bari, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat at present r/o H.No.504/31, New Court road, Ashok Vihar, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

United Insurance Co. Ltd.  159/20 Opp. Bulbul Restaurant, Atlas road, Sonepat.

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Pawan Kumar Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. RP Antil Adv. for respondent.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the owner of Polo Diesel Car no.HR29P/0023 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 30.3.2013 to 29.3.2014 and unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 19.6.2013.  The complainant informed the Volkswagen India Authority informing about the unproper functioning of the vehicle and the said authority directed MGRS Automotive Pvt. Ltd. who took the vehicle of the complainant to their service station.  The complainant also informed the respondent. The complainant wrote and attached the estimated report of surveyor and expenses to be incurred as advised by the service advisor to the tune of Rs.305824/- approximately.    After submitting the surveyor report, analysis report and advise by the dealer, the respondent did not consider all the submissions and totally ignored the same.  The complainant was thus forced to pay the final amount of job work to the tune of Rs.158000/- to MGRS Automotive Pvt. Ltd. on 25.10.2013 and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the respondent deputed their surveyor and loss assessor Sanjiv Kumar Gupta to inspect the vehicle of the complainant and to submit his survey report. The said surveyor has submitted his report dated 10.4.2014 vide which he submitted the estimated loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.18236/- and after discussion held in between the complainant and surveyor, the loss was assessed and agreed to by the complainant at Rs.10973/- in full and final settlement of the claim.  The estimated report prepared by the alleged service advisor Ansar Ali for Rs.305284/- is wrong and false. Infact only the oil sump/chamber of the vehicle was damaged in the accident and the respondent company is, thus, ready to pay the assessed amount of Rs.10973/- to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          In the present case, as per the respondent, the matter was discussed with the insured and after long discussion, the loss was settled for an amount of Rs.10973/- in full and final settlement.

          But the complainant has produced two estimates i.e. for Rs.17342/- and second for Rs.305284/-.

          The bare perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant and respondent shows that there was a hidden damage in the vehicle in question.  As per AnnexureC4 there was a damage in the oil chamber of the vehicle due to the accident which took place on 19.6.2013.  Initially the estimate Annexure C5 was prepared for Rs.17342/-.  Later-on, after opening the chamber of the engine of the vehicle, some more damages were found and it was also noticed that the engine of the vehicle was ceased due to damage.  Thereafter supplementary estimate was prepared for Rs.305284/- by the authorized service station Volkswagen Agra MGRS Automotive(P) Ltd. and the same is C-7.

          In the present case, the surveyor prepared the survey report which is Ex.R1.  After going through the surveyor report, we find that the surveyor has not mentioned anywhere that he has physically verified the vehicle in question i.e. on 20.6.2013 or thereafter.  It is the prime duty of the surveyor to physically check and verify the vehicle in question if there is any hidden damage in the vehicle  and in that situation, the surveyor should approach the service station for the inspection of the vehicle.  In the present case, the complainant wrote a letter in the insurance company i.e. Annexure C6 and intimate that there is hidden damage in the vehicle of the complainant and due to this, engine of the vehicle was ceased and he has also supplied the supplementary estimate in the insurance company.  But after receiving this letter, the respondent surveyor namely Sanjiv Kumar Gupta has not approached the service station regarding reassessment of the loss of the vehicle.

          As per the complainant, he has paid an amount of Rs.158000/- to MGRS Automotive Ltd. and the retail invoice is placed on the file as C9.

          In our view, it is the prime duty of the surveyor to take update regarding the vehicle and to reinspect the vehicle in question after its repair. But in the case in hand, the surveyor has not reinspected the vehicle, whereas the vehicle was in the service station for a long time i.e. 20.6.2013 to 25.10.2013. So, in our view, there is a serious lapse on the part of the surveyor and the respondent insurance company.  As per the surveyor the matter was settled between the parties after long discussion.  But the insurance company and the surveyor has failed to produce any settlement letter regarding the settlement of claim in between them/  So, this version of the respondent is not tenable in the eyes of law. 

          The vehicle in question was registered on 17.4.2012 and the accident took place on 19.6.2013.  The complainant has alleged in this complaint that he has to pay Rs.158000/- as per AnnexureC9 to MGRS Automotive due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondent to deduct Rs.15800/- i.e. 10% out of Rs.1,58,000/- and to pay the remaining amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.  We order accordingly.  Further the respondent is directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/-(Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.     

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:19.08.2015