Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/858/2022

KULDEEP KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT CHAUDHARY

08 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/858/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.10.2022
Date of Decision	:	8/11 /2023

 

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma S/o Lalchand Sharma 248/1, Defence Colony, Sector C, Kalarheri (28) , Ambala, Haryana 133001.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company Limited, (through its Manager) Regd. Office: 2^nd floor “Dare House”, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai 600001.

2.       Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance, Branch office SCO 2463-2464, 2^nd floor, Sector 22C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Viren Sibal, Advocate for OPs alongwith Sh. Sunil Gupta, Deputy Manager of OPs.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is registered owner of Brezza LDI  car bearing registration No.HR85B7421 (hereinafter to be referred as subject car), registered vide registration certificate Exhibit C-1 and was insured with OP vide insurance policy Annexure C-2. On 4.5.2022  at Panchkula,  the subject car met with an accident and  intimation regarding the same was given to the officials of the OPs  and the complainant was assured by the officials of the OPs that the claim will be settled but the complainant shocked to see that the insurance claim of the complainant was rejected by the OPs without giving any specific reason. As the complainant was in urgent need of the subject car, he got the same repaired by paying an amount of Rs.31128/- from his own pocket  and the copy of invoice is Exhibit C-3. As the OPs have rejected the claim of the complainant without reason, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, however, admitted that the subject car was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 25.4.2022 to 24.4.2023 and the complainant had given intimation about the damage to the car to the OPs on 4.5.2022  and accordingly  Surveyor to assess the loss was deputed. It is  alleged that the claim is still under process and  is pending only on account of non-submission of certain documents such as NEFT details of the complainant. The copy of final survey report is annexed as Annexure R-1.   On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car as is also evident from Exhibit C-1  and the same was got insured from OP vide insurance policy Annexure C-2 valid from  25.4.2022 to 24.4.2023 and the subject car met with an accident at Panchkula on 4.5.2022 and intimation regarding the same was also given by the complainant to the OPs who deputed surveyor to assess the loss to the subject car as is evident from the Surveyor Report Annexure R-1, , the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the Ops are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.31,128.40  in pursuance of exhibit C-3  and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if the Ops have  not repudiated the claim of the complainant and the claim is under process and is pending on account of non submission of documents such as NEFT details by the complainant to the OPs and the complaint being false is liable to be dismissed. ‘
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the  only question  is required to be determined in this case is if the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.31,128.40  as per Exhibit C-3 or is entitled for Rs.10,719.76 in pursuance to the surveyor report Annexure R-1.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-3 indicates that the complainant got the subject car repaired and the repairer issued invoice dated 10.7.2022 to the tune of Rs.31,128.40 which includes replacement of parts and labour charges. However, a perusal of Annexure R-1  the final survey report indicates that the surveyor  has assessed the net liability  to the tune of Rs.10,719.76 by giving description of cost, GST, parts as well as labour charges.
   4. The  Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

 

5. It has been further held by Hon’ble National Commission in the later order in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. ltd vs. Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd. II (2023) CPJ 468 (NC) as under:-

“(i) Insurance — Surveyors’ report — Survey and investigation are one of fundamentals in settling claim, and cannot and should not be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons, though it also goes concomitantly that survey or investigation should be convincing and pass test of credence in scrutiny — State Commission has not gone into contents of surveyors’ reports at all on ground that reports were filed belatedly before it — Reports were in any case available before State Commission and as such it ought to have examined their contents rather than dismissing them outright — Depending upon circumstances State Commission could have even imposed terms including cost for belatedly filing reports but to treat them as suspicious and to perfunctorily dismiss them outright merely because they were filed belatedly was not approach either justified or called for — No need to examine surveyors’ reports at this stage at any great length since both parties agree that settlement may be made on basis of respective surveyor’s assessment of actual loss in each case.”

 

23. As held above the survey  and investigation reports are important pieces of evidence and has to be given due weightage and can only be ignored if there is any other cogent evidence otherwise, which the complainant failed to rebut by way of any concrete evidence, hence, the complainant is entitled for claim amount of Rs.10,719.76 rounded off to Rs.10,720/- as assessed by the surveyor.
24.  Though the OPs have come with the plea that the claim of the complainant is under process on account of non-submission of NEFT documents by the complainant but there is nothing on record if the Ops ever asked the complainant till the filing of written version by the OPs before this Commission about the documents to be submitted by the complainant or about the NEFT details making clear that the OPs have withheld the genuine claim of the complainant without any reason and the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹10,720/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 8/11//2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member