Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 174.
Instituted on : 15.04.2015.
Decided on : 19.07.2017.
Madhu Bala Jain w/o Sh. S.K.Jain R/o 2103 Sec-1, New Housing Board Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCF-23, 1st Floor, Subhash Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co. Ltd.1 DLF Industrial Plot, 2nd floor, Moti Nagar, New Delhi through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Punit Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had filed a complaint vide complaint no.651 institution date 29.09.2010 and the same was decided on 20.02.2014 with direction to the opposite party to settle the claim of complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of documents. It is averred that counsel for the complainant supplied the documents on 21.02.2014 but till date case has not been settled by the opposite party despite repeated requests. It is averred that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy for his Santro Car from the opposite party and on 23.05.2010 the alleged vehicle met with an accident and damaged badly. The complainant lodged her claim with the opposite party and completed all the formalities alongwith the estimate of claim of damaged vehicle for an amount of Rs.49515/-. The surveyor was appointed by the opposite party and complainant started the repair work of vehicle after taking permission from the surveyor. It is averred that during the repair work complainant received repudiation letter dated 02.06.2010 submitting therein that the damages are not co-related with the cause of accident. Hence the claim stands repudiated and no correspondence in future will be entertained in this regard. It is averred that complainant requested one independent surveyor for assessment of loss and he assessed the loss of Rs.45079/- but the opposite party has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite party of not disbursing the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim of Rs.49515/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant has not intimated to the police regarding the accident. Complainant has not intimated to the answering opposite party immediately for conducting the spot survey. The alleged accident occurred on 23.05.2010 whereas intimation for accident of vehicle was submitted on 26.05.2010. On merits, it is submitted that it is denied that the complainant supplied the complete and required documents on 21.02.2014. It is averred that the manner of accident and damages of vehicle are not co-related with the accident. It is denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.45079/-. It is averred that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and after that opposite party failed to conclude his evidence despite availing several opportunities and the evidence of opposite party was closed by the order dated 13.07.2017 of this Forum.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R4 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.11968/- but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R2 has repudiated the claim on the ground that: “The damages are not co-related with the cause of accident”. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of survey report Ex.C6 of an independent surveyor as per which the loss has been assessed as Rs.45079/-.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the damages are not co-related with the cause of accident. But the same is not proved on file by any cogent evidence. Moreover affidavit of surveyor has also not been placed on record to prove the fact. Regarding the independent surveyor appointed by the complainant, opposite party has placed reliance upon the law cited in IV(2013)CPJ233(NC) titled as Dipali Das V.s United India Insurance Co. ltd. & Anr. Whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Accident of vehicle-Loss suffered-Surveyor appointed-Loss assessed less than claimed-Alleged deficiency in service-District forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-Surveyor’s report is pitted against report of private surveyor-Surveyor appointed by Insurance Company is independent person-Report of surveyor will get preponderance over private surveyor’s report-Loss assessed by surveyor upheld”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that report of surveyor submitted by the complainant is not tenable and the complainant is entitled for the claim as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the company i.e. Rs.11968/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.11968/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred sixty eight only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.15.04.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.07.2017
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
