Punjab

Sangrur

CC/313/2016

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  313

                                                Instituted on:    01.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       26.09.2016

 

Jagtar Singh son of Balwant Singh, R/O VPO Katron, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Claims Department, SCO No.14, 4^th Floor, Urban Estate, Sector -5, Panchkula,  through its Authorized Signatory.

2.     Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.  Regd. And Head Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune through its GM/MD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For Opp.parties         :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.         Shri Jagtar Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OPs by getting insured his LML scooter  bearing registration number PB-13-AJ-8230 from the OPs for Rs.47,000/- for the period from 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016 vide cover note number DY1302117915 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.1238/-. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident with one tractor trolly on 12.09.2015   near village Tibba, Tehsil Dhuri and District Sangrur and damaged badly. It is further averred that the complainant also suffered injuries in the said accident and was hospitalized at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. It is further averred that after the accident the scooter was brought to Vrindavan Autos, Sanghera Road, Barnala and intimation was given to the Op regarding the accident. The surveyor was also appointed by the Ops who took photographs and got signed from the complainant on blank documents. It is further averred that the repairer M/s. Vrindavan Autos prepared the estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.41,135/- and told that estimated cost of loss exceeds 75% of the IDV, as there is no need to get the same repaired and it will be settled on total loss basis.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant requested the Ops to settle the claim, but the Ops vide letter dated 14.12.2015 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that due to non cooperation and non submission of the documents i.e. “production of vehicle for under and final inspection to surveyor, to submit original bills of repairs and parts purchased, provide MLC and medical treatment record of the driver involved in the accident”.  Since the scooter had met the loss more than 75% of the IDV, there was no requirement to get the scooter repaired. As such, the complainant got served the legal notice upon the OPs, but the claim was not settled. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.47,500/- on total loss basis  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.         In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false, baseless and without any basis, which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.47,500/- with the OPs under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle met with an accident and receipt of intimation regarding the same is also admitted. It has been denied that the surveyor took the estimate of Rs.41,135/- from M/s. Vrindavan Autos and it is also denied that the vehicle was said to be total loss.  It has been stated that the complainant was asked to bring the vehicle vide letter dated 13.10.2015, but he failed to do so.  It is further stated that the complainant even did not submit the bills to show the repair of the scooter in question.  Further it is stated that as per the report of the surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, the damage to the scooter is to the tune of Rs.29,293/- only on the basis of damage noted down at the time of inspection and from the estimate supplied by the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-2 copy of compromise, Ex.C-3 copy of estimate, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 14.12.2015, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 copies of legal notice and postal receipts, Ex.C-9 copy of hospital discharge slip, Ex.C-10 copy of indoor file, Ex.C-11 copy of RC, Ex.C-12 copy of DL and Ex.C-13 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.Op-2 affidavit of Rajesh Aggrwal, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-5 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-6 copy of letter dated 14.12.2015, Ex.OP-7 copy of despatch record, Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-11 copies of letters and postal receipts and closed evidence.

 

4.               We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.               It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his scooter in question with the OPs for Rs.47,500/- for the period from 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016 as is evident from the copy of cover note on record as Ex.C-1.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.09.2015, intimation of which was given to the OPs, as such after receipt of the intimation the OPs immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report dated 22.09.2015, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.29293/-.

 

6.               It is proved on record that the insured scooter of the complainant met with an accident on 12.09.2015, wherein the scooter in question damaged badly and suffered heavy loss.  In this regard, the stand of the complainant is that the repairer assessed the scooter on total loss basis, as such, full insurance claim was payable, whereas the surveyor of the surveyor assessed the loss payable to the complainant at Rs.29,293/- as is evident from the copy of survey report on record.  

 

7.               The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs took the estimate, Ex.C-3 from M/s. Vrindavan Autos, Barnala (who is authorized dealer of LML Limited), which shows that the loss to the scooter was to the tune of Rs.41,135/-, whereas the insurance of the scooter was only for Rs.47,500/- meaning thereby the loss of the scooter was more than 75% of the IDV, whereas the Ops are only paying the amount of Rs.29293/- to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since the claim of the scooter is required to be settled on total loss basis, whereas the surveyor has wrongly assessed the claim on lower side to the tune of Rs.29293/-.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the surveyor has not explained how he assessed the loss to the scooter at Rs.29293/-, whereas the loss to the scooter should be assessed on total loss basis, as the loss was more than 75% of the IDV of the scooter.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rama Nanda 2016(2) CLT 137, wherein it has been held that if the surveyor does not agree with the estimate given by the complainant then he should unless goes by the cost of the repair, if any, fixed by the manufacturer, obtain estimate of repairs from some other workshop and it is only the basis of such a quotation/estimate that he can reject the estimate obtained by the insured.  Alternatively, the surveyor can make enquiry from some other workshops and note down the particulars of the workshop along with the charges quoted by it.  In such a case, the insurer should ask the insured to get the vehicle repaired at the workshop which has provided a lower estimate of repair to the surveyor. The assessment made by the surveyor becomes wholly arbitrary and cannot be accepted.  Similar is the position in the present case, as the surveyor has miserably failed to establish on record that he ever approached the other repairers to get the estimate of the repairs, but he assessed the loss at his own without explaining the reasons. The complainant has also produced on record the copies of the legal notices Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 served upon the Ops, but the claim was not settled.  Though the OPs have produced on record the affidavit of Navjeet Sinmgh, Ex.OP1 and of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal Ex.OP-2, but it does not prove on record that the surveyor ever approached the other repairers to get the lower estimate of the loss of the scooter.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not settling the claim of the complainant on total loss basis.

 

8.               The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

9.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant on total loss basis and pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.47,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.03.2016 till realisation. The complainant is also directed to submit the required documents and to complete the formalities for getting the claim from the Ops.  We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.3500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

10.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 26, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member