ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
The case of the complainant is that his car met with an accident in January, 2015.
It is alleged by the complainant that he took his car at M/s Globus Motor Co. (P) Ltd. for carrying out the necessary repair work. It is further alleged by the complainant that he got his car back from M/s Globus Motor after paying a sum of Rs.27,881/-.
It is further alleged by the complainant that intimation of the accident was given to OP – 3 but despite giving the assurance of setting the claim, nothing has been done by OP – 3.
The complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
Complaint has been contested by the OPs. Separate W.S. has been filed by OP – 1 and 3.
OP – 1 has denied any deficiency in services on its part. He has claimed that he is an employee of OP – 3 and as such he is not liable to the complainant.
OP – 3 in its W.S. has also denied any deficiency in service. Para No.s 2 & 3 of Preliminary Objections of W.S. filed by OP – 3 are relevant for the disposal of this complaint and are reproduced as under:-
2.That the answering Respondent deputed a loss assessor/surveyor to assess the loss namely Mohd. Yamin, who furnished his report dated 21.1.2015 whereby he had assessed a loss of Rs.7,677.53 ps. In all.
3.That as per terms and conditions of the policy, a sum of Rs.4000/- is to be deducted as excess clause and Rs.1000/- also has to be deducted a compulsory excess from the loss assessed at Rs,7,677.53 ps., therefore a sum of Rs.2,677.53 is only payable to the complainant subject to the objection no. 1 above.
We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have perused the record.
Some facts were not disputed by the parties; such as the vehicle being insured by OP – 3, the occurrence of the accident and the damage caused. The counsel for the OP has contended that after receiving information about the accident M/s Mohd. Yamin, Loss Assessor/Surveyor had been appointed, who had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,677.53 vide its report dated 21.1.2015.
It is further contended by the counsel for the OP that as the policy is subject to terms and condition a sum of Rs.4000/- is to be deducted as excess clause and Rs.1000/- is to be deducted under compulsory deduction from the assessed amount of Rs.7,677.53 and thus the insurance co. is liable to pay only Rs.2,677.53 to the complaint.
We are not in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the OP. A copy of survey report dated 21.1.2015 has been filed on record. The bare perusal of the same makes it clear that the surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs.7,677.53 after deducting the sum of Rs.1000/- under excess clause. Hence, the deduction of sum of Rs.4000/- under the excess clause is unjustified. Moreover, the OP company had not placed on record any terms and condition on the basis of which they had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,677.53.
Even though OP had appointed Md. Yamin to assess the loss, it had failed to act on his report and had failed to settle the claim.
In view of the above discussion we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under;-
- Pay to the complainant a sum ofRs.7,677.53 ( loss assessed by the surveyor) (Rupees seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Seven and Fifty Three Paisa Only) alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 16.7.2015.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only ) towards pain and mental agony which includes cost of compensation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on ___________
