Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/83/2020

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amarjit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Abhi Adv.

21 Jun 2021

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	83 of 2020
Date of Institution	17.06.2020
Date of Decision	21.06.2021

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO 99-100, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

1. Amarjit Singh S/o Sh. Anoop Singh, R/o H.No.790, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

   …..Respondent/Complainant

2. Berk Auto limited, Berkeley Hyundai, Industrial Area, Plot No.27, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.                            

       …..Respondent/ Opposite Party No.2            

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Sahil Abhi, Advocate for the appellant.

 Sh. Suraj Mal Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant.

   None for respondent No.2.

 

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.3.2020, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh, now District Commission (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, filed by the complainant, with the following directions: -

“14. In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

[a] To pay Rs.70,056/- to the Complainant along with interest 9% per annum w.e.f. 16.03.2019, till realization.

[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;

[c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

       The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

15. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from 16.03.2019, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.

2.        The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got his Hyundai i20 car bearing Registration No.CH01BE0759 (Annexure C-1) and the same was insured from Opposite Party No.1 for the period from 21.10.2018 to 20.10.2019 under their Policy No.231102/31/2019/5956 vide Annexure C-2. It was stated the vehicle was fully insured from bumper to bumper. It was further stated that during the currency of the insurance policy, on 08.02.2019, while coming from Mohali, the under body of the insured vehicle was hit by a stone in Sector 37, Chandigarh, on account of which the vehicle stopped and could not be started and the same was towed to Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2 workshop on 09.02.2019, who repaired the same and raised a bill of Rs.79,787/- vide Annexures C-4 and C-5. It was further stated that out of the total repair charges of Rs.79,787/- which the complainant paid Rs.70,056/-; whereas, Opposite Party No.1/appellant made payment of Rs.9,731/- only. It was further stated that the vehicle was fully insured from bumper to bumper, the complainant/respondent No.1 took up the matter with Opposite Party No.1/appellant, with a request to make payment of Rs.70,056/- paid by him on 16.03.2019 to Opposite Party No.2, but when nothing positive could come out, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure C-8) upon the Opposite Party No.1, but to no success. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service.
3. Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that on receipt of intimation dated 09.09.2019 about the alleged loss of vehicle, the answering Opposite Party immediately deputed True Value Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. for inspection of the damaged vehicle and for assessment of loss. It was further stated that after receipt of intimation of loss, the Surveyor immediately visited the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and after thorough inspection of the damaged vehicle, assessed the net loss of Rs.9,727/- and submitted the Survey report dated 16.03.2019. It was further stated that after receipt of the said report, the claim of the complainant/respondent No.1 was thoroughly examined and after due application of mind, the claim of the complainant was settled for a sum of Rs.9,441/- as per survey report and paid to Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of claim. It was further stated that the amount, if any, paid to Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2 by the complainant/respondent No.1 for additional work in vehicle was not payable by the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Party No.1/appellant had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite Party No.2 filed its reply and stated that it has repaired the vehicle of the complainant and it is the Opposite Party No.1/appellant, alone who was responsible to pay and repudiate the insurance amount to the complainant. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party has no authority to settle or repudiate the insurance claim of the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.1/appellant, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On-going through the records of the learned District Commission, we find that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 was grossly deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant by not paying the entire/complete repair amount of the vehicle in question. It is found from the record that the appellant has wrongly and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.70,056/- out of the total repair cost. The Opposite Party took stand that the damage which occurred to the vehicle was not covered under insurance. Further, we observe that the surveyor appointed by the insurance company in his survey report dated 16.03.2019 has not given any valid/cogent reasons for allowing the claim to the tune of Rs.9,927/- only. Further, the surveyor has also not mentioned as to under which condition of policy of insurance, he has assessed the loss only to the tune of Rs.9,927/-. District Commission has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar, 2009 CTJ 599 (Supreme Court) (CP) that the surveyor’s report is not the last and the final word for settling an insurance claim. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.  
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

21.06.2021   

 

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

GP