BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 287 of 2018
Date of Institution : 28.11.2018
Date of Decision : 25.09.2019
Naresh son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of village Rajpura Sani, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office, Dare House, 2nd Floor No.2 NSC Bose Road Chennai- 600- 001 (India) through its Managing Director.
- Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office at D.M. Ist Floor, Pusa Road Near Metro Pillar No.81, Plot No.6, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……...MEMBER.
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. V.P. Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant is a registered owner of one tractor bearing registration No. HR-24Y-4680 make Escort which was got insured from opposite parties vide insurance policy No. 3380/01104862/000/00 valid from 12.1.2017 to 11.1.2018 and the complainant paid the requisite premium. It is further averred that unfortunately the tractor of complainant met with an accident with another vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-10-RB-5066 on 15.11.2017 and complainant got registered a rapat vide DD No.19 dated 16.11.2017 in police station Nathusari Chopta. The tractor of complainant was totally damaged. The complainant lodged the claim with the ops and ultimately a sum of Rs.92703/- was paid to the complainant by ops. It is further averred that in fact, the complainant had submitted bill of Rs.1,76,457/- issued by Kisan Service Point, Bhadra road, Nathusari Chopta, District Sursa and the complainant had already paid the above said amount of Rs.1,76,457/- to the above said service centre. The tractor of complainant was fully insured with the ops and the ops have wrongly and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.83,754/- from the above said amount. That after receipt of part payment of Rs.92703/-, the complainant several times requested the officials of the ops to pay the remaining amount but they always put of the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 23.4.2018 legal notice was served upon the ops by complainant but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that in case the complaint is accepted and the complainant is found entitled to get compensation, then he should not be granted interest more than 6% per annum. The ops have already settled the claim of complainant by paying Rs.92,703/- as per the surveyor’s assessment against the repair invoice of Rs.1,76,457.24 after deduction of Rs.83,754/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The amount of Rs.83,754/- has been deducted on account of salvage, on account of non consumable parts, labour charges and on account of depreciation on metal and plastic parts as detailed in para no.12 of the written statement. It is further submitted that answering ops paid the amount of Rs.92703/- to the insured/ complainant by way of NEFT vide voucher No.1231380215 dated 9.4.2018 directly to the account number of complainant and there is no liability remains on the part of answering ops. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also furnished documents i.e. legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2, Ex.C3, copy of DDR Ex.C4, copy of policy schedule Ex.C5, copy of registration certificate Ex.C6 and copy of invoice Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops have produced affidavit of Sh. Dikshant Sharma, Assistant Manager as Ex.R1, copy of policy schedule Ex.R2, copy of motor insurance claim form Ex.R3, copy of DDR Ex.R4, copy of information of action Ex.R5, copy of form no.60 Ex.R6, copies of photographs Ex.R7, copy of adhar card Ex.R8, copy of voter card Ex.R9, copy of pass book Ex.R10, copy of DL Ex.R11 and copy of motor final survey report Ex.R12.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is registered owner of a tractor bearing No. HR-24Y-4680 which was insured with ops for the period 12.1.2017 to 11.1.2018. The vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 15.11.2017 and due intimation was given to the ops. Claim was lodged and the ops had appointed Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal as Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and submitted his report Ex.R12 on record by which he has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.92703/- which was paid by the ops to the complainant.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that complainant had made payment of Rs.1,76,457/- to Kisan Service Point for carrying out repair of his tractor, but however, the ops paid only Rs.92,703/- towards the loss and remaining amount of Rs.83,754/- was not paid for which he is legally entitled to claim.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has also contended that surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle before and after the repair and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.92,703/- which was paid to the complainant. The Surveyor had deducted the amount of Rs.83,754/- under different heads as detailed in para no.12 of the written statement which finds corroboration from the report of surveyor. The ops are not liable to pay any amount as claim of complainant has been fully settled and paid.
9. No doubt, the complainant has claimed this amount of Rs.83,754/- alongwith interest as balance claim amount on the ground that he has spent Rs.1,76,457/- on the repair of vehicle which he had paid and relied upon bill of Kisan Service Point, Nathusari Chopta. It is settled principle of law that after accident of the vehicle, loss is to be assessed by an approved surveyor and loss assessor as in the present case ops had appointed Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss of the vehicle and he after thorough inspection submitted his detailed report Ex.R12 by which he reported the loss payable by ops to the tune of Rs.92,703/- and recommended for deduction of the amount of Rs.83,754/- under different heads which are not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. The record reveals that complainant has not filed any objection against the report of the surveyor which was submitted on 27.3.2018 though present complaint has been filed by complainant on 28.11.2018 after eight months of the report of the surveyor. Nor he made any prayer for appointment of the second surveyor in order to get the loss of the vehicle reassessed. So, it appears that complainant himself has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove his plea in the complaint for grant of remaining amount of Rs.83,754/-.
10. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:25.09.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
