Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1025/2016

Shri Devender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS, General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Rose Gupta Adv. & Rakesh Kumar Adv.

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1025/2016
Date of Institution	:	16.12.2016
Date of Decision	:	13/02/2018

 

                                       

                                               

1.     Sh.Devender Singh s/o Sh.Sita Ram r/o H.No.136, r/o Village Bhatol Rangran, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

 

2.     Mohan Fourwheel Pvt. Ltd., Village Chikanwas, Near Kalpana Chawla College, Sirsa Road, Hisar through its Director Sh.Himanshu Garg s/o Sh.Narender Kumar r/o H.No.30, Sector 14, Hisar.

                                ...  Complainants.

Versus

1.     Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Director having its Regd. Office & Head Office at Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001.

 

2.     Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Branch, SCO No.2463-2464, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Rakesh Kumar & Sh.Rose Gupta, Adv. for complainant

                   Sh.Puneet Jain, Adv. for the OP.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant No.1 purchased Eicher Pro -3015 truck  from complainant No.2 and got it insured with the OPs vide cover note for the period from 31.12.2015 to 30.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.15.20 lacs against the premium of Rs.46,916/-.  It was alleged that there was an agreement between the OPs and complainant No.2 for cashless/zero depreciation policy of all vehicles sold by complainant No.2 including the vehicle in question.  The vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.05.2016 and the surveyor appointed by the OPs recommended the claim to the tune of Rs.3,90,442/- on account of the damage to the vehicle whereas job card invoice credit dated 09.06.2016 issued by the complainant No.2, the total cost of the repairs was for Rs.4,12,897/-.  According to the complainants, the OPs have paid a sum of Rs.1.80 lacs to complainant No.2 and a sum of Rs.2,05,942/- has been deducted on account of the salvage value of the above vehicle.  It has further been averred that the complainants requested the OPs to lift the salvage of the vehicle and to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,05,942/- as recommended by the surveyor but to no effect. Finally, they got served a legal notice dated 03.08.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect. Alleging that the amount of Rs.2,05,942/- has been illegally retained by the OPs, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it has been pleaded that the claim has already been paid to the complainants as per the surveyor report and the claim was fully discharged as per their consent and they were agreed to bear the share of expenses.  It has further been averred that the amount of Rs.1.80 lacs as assessed by the surveyor has been paid to the complainants as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the salvage of the vehicle was retained by the complainants and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating their own.
4.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
5.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the complaint is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is established from the survey report dated 16.06.2016 (Ex.OP-1) annexed with the written statement that the surveyor appointed by the OPs in his survey report assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.3,90,442/- including Rs.2,05,942.04P towards the salvage value of the vehicle in question.
6.         The only defence of the OPs is that since the salvage was retained by the complainants and, therefore, the Company was right in releasing the remaining amount of Rs.1.80 lacs to the complainants as per their consent and the surveyor report.   However, to justify their stand, the OPs have not been able to place on record any documentary evidence in the shape of the consent letter allegedly executed by the complainants in their favour to show that the complainants have ever showed their willingness to retain the salvage of the vehicle as alleged.   On the other hand, it has been argued by the counsel for the complainants that the complainants time and again had requested the OPs to lift the salvage from premises of the complainant No.2-M/s Mohan Fourwheel Pvt. Ltd.  and to pay the remaining amount as per the surveyor report and even the complainants got served a registered AD legal notice dated 03.08.2016 in this regard upon the OPs. Hence, this objection of the OPs does not hold any water and the same is rejected accordingly.
7.         In Ashu Textiles Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr, III (2009) CPJ 272 (NC),  it was held  that Surveyor’s  report has to be given more weightage than the report of the Fire Brigade.    In Dabiruddin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,& Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), it was held that Surveyor’s report being important document, cannot be easily brushed aside.   Same view was taken in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New Good Luck Retrading Works, III (2009) CPJ 262, wherein it was held that Surveyor’s report cannot be brushed aside easily, without valid justification.
8.          Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the survey report, in our considered view, the OPs cannot force the complainants to retain the salvage of the vehicle against their wish and consent especially when the surveyor appointed by the OPs had assessed the liability of the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs.3,90,442/- and as such the company is liable to pay that amount to the complainants after retaining the salvage/wreckage of the vehicle with them.   Thus, the OPs have proved to be deficient in service by releasing the part payment to the insured.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To release the balance payment of Rs.2,05,942/-  towards the salvage of the vehicle in question  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the surveyor report i.e. 16.06.2016 till its realization to the complainants. However, the complainants shall cooperate with the OPs by signing all the requisite documents, if any, required by them for disposing the salvage of the vehicle in question.  
2. To pay Rs.3,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/-  as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual payment besides litigation expenses.

10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13/02/2018 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER