Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/54

SUKHPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Jindal

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      54

Date of Institution:  20.02.2017

Date of Decision :   1.09.2017

 

Sukhpreet Singh aged about 31 years, s/o Gurmeet Singh r/o Village Ajit Gill, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                                   ........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Krishna Street No.3, Fauji road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Authorized Person/ Regional Manager.
3. National Insurance company Ltd. Registered Office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071, through its Managing Director/ Director/Authorized Person.

........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P L Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs 1,63,137/-as remaining insurance claim and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

 2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got insured his truck with OPs vide policy no. 401702/ 21 /15/ 6300000790 for the period from 10.09.2015 to 9.09.2016. At the time of issuing insurance policy, OPs assured complainant against every kind of risk including accident of vehicle and also assured about transparency in work and guarantee and warrantee for claim by Ops. On 20.11.2015 at about 7.30 am, truck of complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant immediately informed OPs. On intimation by complainant, OPs appointed a Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and as per directions of OPs, complainant got repaired his truck from Nayyar Motors, Moga Road, Kotkapura and paid Rs.5,39,197/- to them vide bill dated 19.12.2015 and thereafter, complainant lodged him claim with Ops and submitted all the requisite documents and also completed all the formalities to obtain the insurance claim and at that time, Ops assured complainant that his claim would be settled soon. After that, OPs credited the amount of Rs.3,76,060/-in account of complainant and  gave no notice or information for retaining the remaining amount. Complainant made several requests to OPs to make payment of remaining claim amount, but all in vain and this action of OPs in passing only partial claim and for not making payment of remaining claim amount amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for directions to Ops to make payment of Rs 1,63,137/-as remaining insurance claim and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                       The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.02.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as complainant has already received the insurance claim for accident of his truck. as per Surveyor Report, claim has been paid to complainant and as per report of Surveyor, claim of complainant has been satisfied and nothing is due towards OPs. Complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. Complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring detailed evidence, which is not permissible in the Consumer Protection Act. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant but admitted before the Forum that truck in question was insured with OPs for the period from 10.09.2015 to 9.09.2015 and said truck met with an accident. it is asserted that on intimation by complainant, answering OPs appointed R P Bhasin as Surveyor to assess the loss and as per terms and conditions of Policy and after thorough application of mind and in consultation with complainant, said Surveyor gave his report and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.3,77,315/-and amount of Rs.3,76,060/-has already been paid to complainant on 27.04.2016 and now nothing is due towards them as insurance claim. There is no malafide intention or exploitation by OPs as claim of complainant has been fully satisfied. All the other allegations have been denied being wrong, incorrect and false and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Kuldeep Singh Branch Manager as Ex OP-1, affidavit of R P Bhasin Ex OP-2 and documents Ex OP-3 and Ex OP-4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                        Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant got insured his truck with OPs vide policy in question for the period from 10.09.2015 to 9.09.2016 and at the time of issuing insurance policy, OPs assured complainant against every kind of risk like accident of vehicle and also assured about transparency in work for claim by Ops. On 20.11.2015 at about 7.30 am, truck of complainant met with an accident and complainant immediately informed OPs. On intimation, OPs appointed a Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and as per directions of OPs, complainant got repaired his truck from Nayyar Motors, Moga Road, Kotkapura and paid Rs.5,39,197/- to them vide bill dated 19.12.2015 and thereafter, complainant lodged him claim with Ops and submitted all the requisite documents and also completed all the formalities to obtain the insurance claim and at that time, Ops assured complainant that his claim would be settled soon. After that, OPs passed partial claim and credited the amount of Rs.3,76,060/-only in account of complainant and gave no reason for retaining the remaining amount. Complainant made several requests to OPs to make payment of remaining claim amount, but all in vain and this action of OPs in passing only partial claim and for not making payment of remaining claim amount amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8                                                  To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant is not their consumer. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as complainant has already received the insurance claim for accident of his truck. As per Surveyor Report, claim has been paid to complainant and as per report of Surveyor, claim of complainant has been fully satisfied and nothing is due towards them. Complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed and it involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring detailed evidence, which is not permissible in the Consumer Protection Act. Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant but admitted before the Forum that truck in question was insured with OPs for the period from 10.09.2015 to 9.09.2015 and said truck met with an accident. it is asserted that on intimation by complainant, OPs appointed R P Bhashin as Surveyor to assess the loss and as per terms and conditions of Policy and after thorough application of mind and also in consultation with complainant, said Surveyor gave his report and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.3,77,315/-and thereafter, amount of Rs.3,76,060/-was paid to complainant on 27.04.2016 and now nothing is due towards them as insurance claim. There is no malafide intention or exploitation by OPs as claim of complainant has been fully satisfied. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

9                                              We have heard the arguments of both the parties and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties.             

10                                    The case of the complainant is that his vehicle was insured with OP, which met with an accident on 20.11.2015 within insurance period and got damaged. He gave due information regarding it to OPs who appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss. As  per 

 

complainant, on directions of OPs, he got repaired his truck from Nayyar Motors, Kotkapura and paid Rs.5,39,197/- to them vide bill dated 19.12.2015 and thereafter, lodged claim with Ops and completed all the other formalities to obtain the insurance claim. After that, OPs credited the amount of Rs.3,76,060/- only in the account of complainant and gave no reason for not paying the remaining amount. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests by complainant, OPs have not made payment of remaining insurance claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. On the other hand, OPs stressed mainly on the point that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and Survey Report given by Surveyor R P Bhasin, claim of complainant has been successfully passed and settled and amount of Rs. 3,76,060/-has already been credited to his account after deducting salvation and depreciation on account of wear and tear and usage by complainant and nothing is due towards Ops pertaining to insurance claim of his vehicle. Ld Counsel for OPs argued that on receipt of information regarding accident from complainant, they appointed a Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at the sport and also inspected the vehicle before and after repair thoroughly. The Surveyor had also gone through the estimate bill minutely and after considering all the aspects after deducting the salvage and depreciation value of the damaged parts assessed the loss to the vehicle which has already been paid to the complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

 

11                                          Ld Counsel for Ops has placed reliance on citation in judgment given by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as  United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Deen Dayal II (2009) CPJ 45 (NC) wherein it is held that as Sureyor’s Report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material  to the contrary on the record. He has also placed reliance on case law titled as Gurdeep Singh Vs The new India Assurance Company in First Appeal No.1317 of 2012 decided on 10.06.2014, wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh held that it is now well settled that the report of the Surveyor may not be the final word but for not relying upon such a report the reasons must be made out or the discrepancies therein must be pointed out.

12                                      From the above discussion and case law produced by Ops, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they have already settled the claim of complainant as per report given by Surveyor and have made payment of Rs.3,76,060/-to complainant as insurance claim after deduction of salvage and depreciation. Complainant has failed to prove his case. We are fully convinced with the arguments of OPs and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 1.09.2017         

 

             Member                              President

                        (P Singla)                         (Ajit Aggarwal)