DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 61 OF 2014
Chetan Raja,
S/O- Late Amritlal Raja,
R/O: Belpahar, PO/PS: Belpahar,
Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha………………………………………………Complainant.
Versus
- Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
PO: K.M.Road, PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- Branch Manager,
Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Sagar Junction, At/PO: Ainthapali,
PS/Dist: Sambalpur- 768 004.….…………………....….…...Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri P.R. Singhdeo, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party No.1 Shri B.N.Dutta, Adv. & Associates.
For theOpp. Party No.2 Shri Bighna Raj Panda, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 13.07.2015
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.
3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member.
Shri S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member: - The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he is the registered owner of one Tata LPS 4018 Trailer bearing Regn. No. CG-13-L-8887 insured by O.P.No.1 and financed by O.No.2. The vehicle was manufactured in the month of June’2013 and after purchasing the same it was registered on dtd 18.09.2013 and duly insured the validity period from dtd. 27.08.2013 to 26.08.2014. The said vehicle met with an accident on dtd. 27.12.2013 regarding which the matter was registered at Thelkoloi Police station under PS case No. 141 dtd. 27.12.2013
and immediately lodged insurance claim before the O.P.No.1. The said vehicle was severely damaged and that was beyond economical repair but as per compelled by the O.P.No.1 the complainant agreed to repair and the said has been repaired at one authorized service station of Tata Motors namely Krishna Motors, Belpahar. The complainant claimed of Rs.14,82,980/- only to the O.P.No.1 by submitting the bills and vouchers of authorized service center but the O.P.No.1 paid Rs.5,00,000/- only on dtd. 13.03.2014 and Rs.5,69,219/- only on dtd. 23.07.2014 but the complainant protested the same as the fuel pump has been replaced to a new one with total expenditure of Rs.82,020/- only but the O.P.No.1 has paid only repair charges, so also a new steering gearbox costing Rs.40,000/- only has also been replaced but the O.P.No.1 paid Rs.18,000/- only and where the labour charges costing Rs.65,955/- only, the O.P.No.1 has paid Rs.34,764/- only which are all alleged to be unjustified and deficiency in service, hence this case.
The O.Ps. appeared through their counsels after being noticed and submitted their written versions. The O.P.No.2 (financier) submitted that the vehicle is under hypothecation agreement and he has every legal rights to claim for the outstandings which are pending. The vehicle was finance for Rs.27,00,000/- only where the entire loan amount with interest are to be repaid by the complainant in 58 nos. of monthly installments of Rs.63,900/- only per month started from dtd.22.09.2013 to 22.06.2018. The O.P.No.1 (Insurance company) also denied the allegations imposed by the complainant and submitted that, after being claimed one surveyor namely ER. Rabi Narayan Tripathy was deputed who has investigated and assessed loss of Rs.10,85,704/- only and after gone through the said report the O.P.No.1 settled the claim for Rs.10,69,219/- only and paid to the complainant through NEFT payment. Both the O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Heard in length by the parties and perused the case record minutely along with materials available. The O.P.No.2 has financed the vehicle and the vehicle in question unfortunately met with an accident within the period of warranty so also within validity of the insurance. The non-payment of installments by the complainant for the period of repairing and all, demanding of outstanding by the O.P.No.2 is not an unjustified one even at the stage the vehicle is beyond economical repair.
The complainant, as per the suggestions by the O.P.No.1 (insurance company) repaired the said vehicle at one of the authorized service station of Tata Motors. The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.14,82,980/- only and the surveyor assessed loss of Rs.10,87,704/- only but it is worth noting that the O.P.No.1 paid Rs.10,69,219/- only through NEFT payment. Undoubtedly, the complainant received the same at the circumstance when the O.P.No.2 was pressuring for payment of outstanding dues but with protest. Afterwards the complainant served several letters to the O.P.No.1 for payment of the rest amount which are claimed to be genuine.
So far as the Surveyor’s Report is concerned it is a vital document which should be given proper weightage but it is not any line on the stone which can not be challenged. The complainant very technically challenged the said surveyors report on the following grounds;
- The assessment of spare parts bearing serial no. 180- Assy.stg. Gear Box, sub clause iv and vi in which it has been mentioned that “the insured replaced the steering box . The fitted steering box appears to be an used one (ref. R.I.P 46 & 47” and “the repairing cost of the steering box will be almost equal to the cost of replacement of a reconditioned one”.
This clause reveals that the steering box which has been replaced was an used one which is simply seems to be an unjustified assessment where the vehicle has been manufactured in the month of June’2013, registered on dtd.18.09.2013 i.e. within a period of 03 months. The surveyor calculated Rs.18,000/- only in place of Rs.40,00/- only i.e. there is difference of Rs. 22,000/- only.
- While assessing labour charges bearing serial no. 282 to 306 of the Surveyor’s Report, total expenditure claimed for Rs.65,955/- only but the said surveyor assessed for Rs.34,764/- only. It is also worth indicating that within a period of warranty the complainant repaired in the authorized service center where the labour charges are fixed and as per the rules of the company. Secondly, how can labour charges be deducted or minimized in comparison to the spare parts where wear and tear, depreciation values are calculated. The labour charges charged by the authorized service centers are fixed as per the norms of the company, thus, deduction in labour charges are also unjustified in the eye of settled principles of law. The O.P.No.1 paid Rs.34,764/- only in place of Rs.65,955/- only i.e. there is difference Rs.31,191/- only.
Very interestingly, the Surveyor assessed for a certain value, the insurance company settled the claim for certain different amount without any clarification. The above mentioned activities of the O.P.No.1 clearly indicating towards deficiency in service on his part hence, on the above limelight the complaint petition is hereby allowed with directions to the O.P.No.1 as follows;
ORDER
- The O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.53,191 /- ( Rupees fifty three thousand one hundred ninety one) only towards the difference in the cost of spar parts and labour charges to the complainant.
- The O.P.No.1 is hereby further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- ( Rupees thirty thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony including cost of the case.
- All the above mentioned order are to be carried out within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 10% per annum will be charged to the O.P.No.1 till realization.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 13th day of July’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree. I Agree,
A.Nanda, Member (W) S. L. Behera President S.K.Ojha, Sr.Member
Dictated and corrected by me
S.K.Ojha, Sr.Member
