BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  119 of 2014

Date of Institution: 04.03.2014

Date of Decision: 19.11.2015

Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh r/o village Pangota, Tehsil Patti and District Tarn Taran

Complainant

Versus

1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager/Legal Representative, having its registered and head office at Dare House, Second Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai
2. Indusind Bank Ltd., through its Manager/Legal Representative, having its office at 39, The Mall, Amritsar
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager/Legal Representative, having its registered and head office at 204, 2^nd Floor, Grand Mall, Industrial Area, Jalandhar, Punjab 144004

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present:    For the Complainant                  :         None

               For the Opposite Party No.2:                Sh. Aman Prasher,Advocate

              For Opposite parties No.1 & 3:   Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sukhdev Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein complainant being owner of truck bearing registration No. PB-46-M-6771 got insured the same with opposite party No. 3 on 13.7.2012. In the Insurance policy personal accident cover for the owner/driver to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs was also included. According to the complainant on 11.5.2013  he met with a road accident at Veeramgaon  District Ahmadabad. Opposite party Insurance company was duly intimated on phone on the same day and spot inspection was done by the surveyor. FIR regarding the accident was lodged at Police Station Veeramgaon, Distt. Ahmadabad (Gujarat) . In the abovesaid accident complainant was injured and was medically treated at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar and an amount  approximately Rs. 2 lacs was incurred on his medical treatment. The vehicle was brought at Jandu Motor Repairing Centre, G.T. Road, New Gulabi Bagh, Moga (Punjab), where the vehicle was repaired. The complainant spent a sum of Rs. 4,52,592/-. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party Insurance company alongwith all the relevant documents as demanded by the surveyor . But the opposite party passed the claim to the tune of Rs. 2,70,400/- only on 30.7.2013 for repair of his damaged vehicle but the  opposite party did not pay any personal accident cover. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to  reimburse the remaining claim amount to the tune of Rs. 1,82,192/- and also to pay personal accident claim to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.4.2014.
3. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had taken financial assistance from opposite party No.2 for the purchase of a truck. The replying opposite party has nothing to do with the business of Insurance . Whatever transaction regarding insurance has been taken place that were exclusive in between the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 3. As such the present complaint against  the replying opposite party is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents  Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-48.
5. Opposite party  No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rama Kant, Branch Manager Ex.OP2/1, loan agreement Ex.OP2/2, copy of statement of account Ex.OP2/3.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party No.2, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the complainant and opposite party No.2 and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant got his vehicle Tata Truck bearing registration No. PB-46-M-6771 insured with the opposite party No.3 on 13.7.2012 i.e. for the period from 13.7.2012 to 12.7.2013 vide policy cover note Ex.C-3. The said policy also cover personal accident   for owner/driver to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. The complainant submitted that on 11.5.2013 the said vehicle met with a road accident at Veeramgaon District Ahmadabad  (Gujarat). The matter was reported to the opposite party on phone. The opposite party appointed surveyor, who inspected the loss caused to the vehicle in the aforesaid accident. In the said accident Sukhdev Singh complainant was also injured and was medically treated at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar and an amount approximately Rs. 2 lacs  was spent on the medical treatment of Sukhdev Singh, complainant. Complaint was also lodged with the police of P.S. Veeramgaon (Gujarat). The vehicle was brought at Jandu Motor Repairing Centre, G.T. Road, New Gulabi Bagh, Moga (Punjab), where the vehicle was repaired. The complainant spent a sum of Rs. 4,52,592/-. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party. All the relevant documents as demanded by the surveyor were also provided by the complainant to the said surveyor. But the opposite party passed the claim to the tune of Rs. 2,70,400/- only on 30.7.2013 nor opposite party paid any personal accident cover. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.2 is that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. The present complaint has been filed just to harass the opposite party No.2. The vehicle in question was insured with opposite party No.3. So opposite parties No.1 & 3 are responsible for payment of any loss to the vehicle in accident or personal accident claim under the Insurance policy in question, to the complainant. As such opposite party No.2 has no concern with the same. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his vehicle Tata Truck bearing registration No. PB-46-M-6771 insured with the opposite party No.3 for the period  from 13.7.2012 to 12.7.2013 vide policy cover note Ex.C-3 with coverage of personal accident for owner/driver to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. The said vehicle met with an accident at Veerangaon District Ahmadabad (Gujarat). The matter was reported to the opposite party, who appointed surveyor  Anil S.Patel Chartered Engineer, Ahmadabad, who conducted survey of the vehicle in question. The opposite party got repaired the vehicle from Jandu Motor Repairing Centre, G.T. Road, New Gulabi Bagh, Moga (Punjab). The complainant alleges that he spent about Rs. 4,52,592/- on the repair of the vehicle in question. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party. But the opposite party on the basis of the report of the surveyor passed the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,70,400/- only on 30.7.2013. The complainant neither produced the bill of repair in this Forum nor the letter vide which the opposite party paid the amount of Rs. 2,70,400/- to the complainant nor copy of the survey report has been produced by the complainant. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the opposite party has paid Rs. 2,70,400/- only on the basis of surveyor’s report. The complainant has neither produced the surveyor report nor challenged the same nor pointed out as to what aspect or point has not been considered or assessed by the surveyor in his survey report. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. B.Ramareddy II(2006) CPJ 339 (NC) that surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence. Compensation can be awarded only on the basis of surveyor's report. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat State Commission in case United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another Vs. Hotel White Rose 2004(3) CLT 494 that surveyor assessment was wrong, burden to prove is on the consumer to establish by producing evidence that what has been left out by the opponents and what has been not correctly and properly assessed by the opponents.
10. The complainant could not point out any defect in the survey report nor  any fact that any part of the claim of the complainant was not considered or assessed by the surveyor. So the opposite party was justified in making the payment to the complainant on the basis  of the surveyor’s report . No person appeared on behalf of the complainant to argue any defect in the surveyor’s report.
11. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 19.11.2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                              President

/R/                             (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)         (Anoop Sharma)

            Member                            Member