DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 238 of 16.6.2017

                                      Decided on:   8.10.2020

Gora Lal son of Sh.Arian Singh resident of House No.7,Azad Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Branch Manager of National Insurance Company Limited, Branch office Ghagga Road, Samana, through its Branch Manager.
2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala District Patiala, through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Chamandeep Mittal,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Alok Mathur, counsel for OPs.                                

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sh.Gora Lal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner and in possession of truck bearing registration No.PB-11-BY-5194. The said truck was insured with OP No.1 vide cover note No.401507985980 for the period from 28.4.2016 to 27.4.2017. During the period of insurance the truck in question met with an accident .The complainant  informed the OP about the accident. The OPs sent their surveyor namely Sandeep Puri, who inspected the vehicle at the spot and took all the estimated bills/job cards of different mechanical workshops of more than Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. The surveyor also took signatures of the complainant on blank papers. It is averred that at the time of inspection the surveyor demanded Rs.10,000/- in cash from the complainant to be paid to the Branch Manager of OP No.1 for processing the insurance claim. Complainant refused to pay the said amount to the surveyor.
3. It is further averred that for repairing the damaged truck, the complainant incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/-
4. It is averred that the surveyor prepared  his report and after lingering on the matter the OP paid only Rs.19781/- on 5.4.2017 against the total claim amount of Rs.1,09,580/- and the remaining amount of Rs.89,799/- is still pending without any reason or cause. The complainant also got sent legal notice to the OPs through registered post on 30.5.2017 but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and torture to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to release the full insurance claim of Rs.1,09,580/- after deducting the amount already paid i.e. Rs.19781/-, alongwith interest @12% per annum ; to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for causing huge mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation to the complainant  and also to pay Rs.15000/-as costs of the complaint.
5. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In reply the OPs raised preliminary objections that  the complaint is not maintainable; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs .It is also stated in the preliminary objections that on the basis of survey report of Er.Sandeep Puri, of Eminent Solvsarve Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd., after taking into consideration the terms and conditions of  the insurance policy, over loading, claims settlement guidelines, the competent authority of OPs has rightly paid a claim of Rs.19781/- (including Rs.1762/- as spot survey fee paid by the insured) to the complainant as full and final payment towards the claim of the complainant and now the complainant is not entitled to a single penny from the OPs; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has filed the complaint intentionally on totally false, concocted and misleading grounds after concealing the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Forum; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
6. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that vehicle bearing chassis No.MAT447224G5D05900, Engine No.61C84296046 was insured by the OPs in the name of Gora Lal s/o Sh.Arjan Singh R/o House No.7, Azad Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala for the period from 28.4.2016 to midnight 27.4.2017.Further it is averred that on receipt of intimation, Sh.Rajesh Kumar Soni, Surveyor was deputed, who after thorough spot survey, submitted his report. It is further pleaded that Claim Department, Ludhiana of the OPs deputed Er.Sandeep Puri of Eminent Solvserve Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to survey the vehicle No.PB-11-BY-5194, who thoroughly inspected the vehicle at the spot in the presence of the complainant and took the documents supplied by the complainant. The OPs reiterated the facts regarding the payment made to the complainant and after denying all other averments made in the complaint, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C23, Exs.C24 to C33, photographs of the vehicle clicked at the time of repair and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence  Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Soni, Surveyor alongwith documents Ex.OP1 surveyor report, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Puri, surveyor,Ex.OP2 copy of surveyor report, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh.Narinder Manchanda, Sr.Branch Manager, Ex.OP3, insurance policy, Ex.OP4 terms and conditions of insurance policy, Ex.OP5, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP6 postal receipts,Ex.OP7, copy of payment voucher (comprising of two pages) and closed the evidence.
9. The OPs filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the truck in question was fully insured with the OPs vide insurance policy dated 28.4.2016.The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that during the insurance, the said vehicle met with an accident. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that on intimation, the OP No.1 has sent a surveyor Sh.Sandeep Puri, who inspected the truck in question. The surveyor took estimated job cards of Rs.1,00,000/-. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that at the time of spot inspection, the surveyor also demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant to be paid to the Branch Manager of the OPs. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that the said amount was not paid and the surveyor sent a wrong report. It is further argued that out of Rs.1,09,580/- only Rs.19781/- was paid and remaining amount of Rs.89,799/- is not paid till date and the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that total amount, which the complainant has spent was of Rs.19781/- has been duly paid to him. The ld. counsel for the OPs has further argued that according to the terms and conditions of the policy the entire amount has been paid and nothing is due.The ld. counsel for the OPs has further argued that surveyor never demanded Rs.10,000/- in cash from the complainant and story is wrong. The ld. counsel for the OPs has  also argued that nothing is due so the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove his complaint, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and he deposed as per his version made in the complaint. Ex.C1 is the comprehensive insurance policy and as per this policy Rs.55,963/- paid by Sh.Gora Lal to the OP and this policy was from 28.4.2016 to 27.4.2017, Ex.C2 is the Good Carriage Permit, Ex.C3 is the copy of registration of the vehicle. Exs.C4 to C18 are the bills out of which Exs.C11,C12,C13,C14,C17 and C18 are estimates. Ex.C4 the bill of  Punjab Mechanical Works is of Rs.11800/-.This is regarding the repair of the truck in question.Ex.C5 is also bill of Rs.49000/- and it is for the repair of truck.  In this bill it is mentioned that Rs.49000/- has been received. Another bill Ex.C6 is also for the purchase of some spare parts of the truck in question. This amount was also paid. Ex.C7 is the bill of Rs.6800/- but the complainant is not entitled to this amount as this amount is not regarding any part means that new part was not purchased only some superficial  repair was done .Ex.C8 is the bill of Rs.14930/-which is regarding change of glass.Ex.C9 is also the bill,vide this bill no new part was purchased. This bill seems to be superficial in nature so  the complainant is not entitled the amount of Rs.22,300/- and the remaining bills are of estimates only.So by calculating all bills from Exs.C4 to C5,C6,C8, the amount comes to Rs.80480/- out of which Rs.19781/- has been paid and Rs.60,699/- is outstanding to be paid.
13. On behalf of the OPs, Sh.Rajesh Kumar Soni, surveyor tendered his affidavit Ex.OPA. He has also tendered his report Ex.OP1. On the page of  3 of this report, total damages has been clearly shown as 10.By looking into damages merely amount of Rs.19781/- has been paid by the OPs and this amount is only on lesser side.
14. Sh.Sandeep Puri, surveyor has also tendered his affidavit Ex.OPB alongwith his report Ex.OP2.In this surveyor report in the summary of assessment, total labour charges have been shown as 1,39,550/- but they have assessed Rs.10,500/-. He has not stated in his surveyor report that how he has assessed only Rs.10,500/- when the original bills have been shown as Rs.1,39,550/-. The total estimate has been shown as Rs.1,61,009.83 but they have shown as a net total as Rs.20,230/- instead of Rs.1,61,009.83.Thus, this surveyor report on its face value is wrong.
15. The ld. counsel for the OPs has further argued that the truck was over loaded. The comprehensive insurance policy is  Ex.OP4 and as per the OPs they have made the payment of Rs.19781/- but there is no evidence on the file which could show that all these commercial vehicle rules were given to the complainant that he got the insurance policy. So it is clear that the insurance company has deliberately paid the less amount of Rs.19781/-.In the surveyor report it is not clearly mentioned that they have come to the conclusion that Rs.19781/- were spent by the complainant in the repair of the truck in question.
16. When the OPs have issued a comprehensive insurance policy and they have received more than Rs.55973/- as amount of insurance, then it is the duty of the insurance company to pay the amount of damages to the complainant.
17. So due to our above discussion, the complainant is entitled to Rs.80480/- out of which he has received Rs.19781/- and now the complainant is entitled to Rs.60,699/- and complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.60,700/- alongwith interest @6% per annum  from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.16.6.2017 till realization alongwith Rs.10,000/-as costs of the complaint.

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:8.10.2020       

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                     President