Brief fact of this case is that, the Complainant is the owner of a 12 wheeler Truck bearing Regd.No.OD-09-C-8816 which was purchased after taking financial assistance of Rs.21,50,500/- from the OP.No.2 during July,2015 and the complainant had deposited an amounting to Rs.3,10,948/- from his own pocket towards margin money and after incurring another Rs.2.00 lakhs towards other charges i.e Insurance, Registration and other Official charges to made it road worthy to maintain his livelihood purpose. The vehicle was insured with IDV value of Rs.23,85,000.00 with OP.No.2 with its agent Intermediary name“IBLVFD Orissa,Barbil” Code No. 201043828094 who was looking business at Barbil on behalf of Op.No.1 having Certificate No.3379/01454921/000/00 for an premium amount of Rs.58,499.00 valid from 24.07.2016 to 23.07.2017. That, due to ill luck on 11.06.2017 i.e within the valid period of insurance the vehicle met with an accident at Tandijoda and totally damaged. FIR was lodged in Sadar Police Station,Keonjhar as accident occurred in the jurisdiction of said Police station at 21.15 hrs. Vide FIR No.0185 dt.11.06.2017 and immediate intimation was given to Op.No.1 and Op.No.2 Insurance Company and financer. On receipt of the intimation the Op.No.1 sent the Surveyor who took preliminary investigation and took photographs and advised the complainant to take the vehicle to garage for repair. After observing all formalities, the complainant shifted the damaged vehicle to authorised garage for necessary repair after incurring towing charges. During repair of the vehicle the surveyor of Op.No.1 has also surveyed the vehicle at garage. The complainant incurred in total a sum of Rs.9,51,713.00 towards repair of the said vehicle excluding other ancillary charges to make it roadworthy. After final survey of the OP.No.1 the said vehicle was released from garage. Accordingly the complainant submitted his claim before Op.No.1 Insurance Company after receipt of genuine bill supplied by the authorised garage. That, after several request the Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- against the claim amount of Rs.9,51,713.00 through cheque to Financer i.e. Op.No.2 without the knowledge of the complainant. When the complainant could able to know that, he asked the Op.No.1 regarding less payment, no reason was given for such less settlement of claim amount. That, the complainant has already been cleared up Rs.24,76,918.00 against Finance amount and the Op.No.1 has to get only Rs,4,89,200 including OD against his finance. The complainant sustained heavy financial loss, mental agony due to such monopoly work of Insurance Company and for such arbitral act of Op.No.1.In these circumstances, the complainant prayed that OP.No.1 Insurance company be directed to pay the assessed amount by their surveyor after deducting Rs.3,60,000/- which has already been paid to Op;.No.2 Financer with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss caused due to non-settlement of claim amount in proper manner and further to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation. Further direction be made to Op.No.2 for not to demand of over-dues from the date of accident to receipt of Insurance amount and to give NOC to the complainant.
The complainant relies upon the following documents:
- Photocopy of R.C.Bookbearing No.OD09C-8816
- Photocopy of D.L. of driver.
- Photocopy of Fitness certificate..
- Photocopy of permit and National permit..
- Photocopy of Authorisation certificate.
- Emissioncertificate
- Photocopy of Policy certificate.
- Payment schedule of Financer.
- Photocopy of repair bills.
- Photocopy of FIR U/S 154 Cr.P.C.dt.11.6.17 of Sadar P.S.
- Photo of Damaged /Insured vehicle.
Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. In their written version the Op No.1 Insurance Company stated that there is no cause of action to bring this case against the OP. This case is also not maintainable as alleged against the OP. The case is bad for non-joinder as well as mis-joinder of parties. There is no jurisdiction to file this case before this Forum. That the facts and circumstances as averred in para-1 ,2 & 3 are partly admitted but some of the facts of the averment are not within the knowledge of the OP. That the facts stated in para-6 of the petition is not admitted. The incurred amount of Rs.9,51,713/- against the repairing charges of the damaged vehicle having no equitable basis. The complainant had submitted bills of Rs.9,29,213/- before the Surveyor and OP.No.1 but at the time of filing the complaint petition the complainant has mentioned Rs.9,51,713/- incurred for repairing charges is baseless and false.
It is worthwhile to say that the complainant has not mentioned the GST number of some of the bills rather has mentioned some other GST number for which the GST part was not allowed by the OP and Surveyor. Moreover, in the final bill the complainant has claimed some part/charges twice and same is interpreted in different language for example in the final bill of the Kanha body builder Item No.1 complete old damaged body dismantling of Rs.10,500/- and again they have claimed and mentioned in item No.14 and 15, old COWl removed for Rs.4,500/- and old wooden cabin dismantling for Rs.7,500/- etc. So also some other claims are double which are not assessed by the Surveyor and at the instances of the complainant, the parts bills rate have been mentioned more than the market value. After going through from all aspect, the surveyor has submitted his report with an assessment of net liability of Rs.3,60,000/-. The OP has paid the said amount to OP No.2 the Financer of the vehicle. The complainant should have to go through the report of the Surveyor to know the exact cost of repairing. It is worth to mention here that, the OP cannot over-ride the assessment of the Surveyor more or less since it is binding upon both the parties as because the Surveyor has calculated claim on the basis of damaged parts of vehicle and also considering depreciation and policy excess clauses and then submitted the reports. That, it is not admitted that the OP has fraudulently settled the matter beyond natural justice in order to harass and mental agony. The allegation and further claim of the complainant having no legal and equitable basis which deserves to be dismissed. This OP is not liable to pay any further claim as claimed by the complainant. The OP has reserved his right to file Additional written version if any, in the future.
The OP.No.1 relies upon the following documents:
No Enclosure.
On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
- Whether the case is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of party.
FINDINGS
All the issues are discussed jointly to decide the case. It is a fact that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD-09C-8816 which is duly insured before Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company (OP No.1) . The said vehicle met with an accident at Tandijoda under KeonjharSadar P.S. On 11.06.2017. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the spot and submitted his report. The complainant prayed to get a sum of Rs.9,51,713.00, but the Insurance Company has paid Rs.3,60,000.00 as per their survey report. The complainant has not filed some GST bills for which the OP Insurance Company could not take into consideration. It is a fact that the admissible claim according to the Survey report is Rs.3,60,000/- which are directly paid to the Financer OP.2. The complainant has paid excess amount for repairing his vehicle but could not produce any original documents to compare with Xerox copy. So the claim of complainant is not taken in to consideration to find out any solution. As the Insurance company has already made payment as per survey report, so this case has no merits. In this circumstances the OP Insurance company has cited a decision having No.2017(3)CPR 71(NC) where it is clearly mentionedthat“Surveyor’s report is only reliable document which is to be considered for settling Insurance claim-petitioner has filed to put forward any cogent reason to dispute Surveyor’s report and there is no reason to reject it”. The OP Insurance company has cited another decision having No.2012(2)CPR94 of Chhattigarh State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission,Raipur that “ report of surveyor cannot be brushed aside merely on the basis of bills. Insurance company directed to pay Rs.26,000/- to complainant/respondent at the place of Rs.1,88,740/-.” Hence this order.
ORDER
The complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
