ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No. UP-17T. 1583. He has a policy of Insurance regarding the above said vehicle vide policy No. 3379/00456337/000/00 which was valide for the period from 2.7.2010 to 1.7.2011 having IDV value of Rs.7,92,300/-. During the subsistence of the said policy the vehicle was damaged in an accident on 8.2.2011. It is alleged by the complainant that the complainant informed the insurance company regarding the alleged incident. The company provided 624925 claim number to the complainant through SMS. It is further alleged that on 9.2.2011 the Company deputed Sh. Inderkant Jha, as a Surveyor to examine the vehicle and assess the loss. It is alleged by the complainant that the said surveyor advised the complainant to get the damaged vehicle repaired and started compelling the complainant to pay 30% amount of maximum assured claim in advance against the survey report, which he had allged that in these circumstances he had got the vehicle repaird. The complainant had lodged acclaim of Rs.52,090/- with the OP but the OP company had sent an account payee cheque of Rs.11,445/- dated 12.4.2011 in the name of the complainant against the damages claimed by him. The complainant further alleged that he did not present the said cheque for encashment and made several requests to the OP to release the actual incurred amount. i.e. Rs.52,090/- but of no use. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and has approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complainant is motivated and is based false facts.
Para 6 & 8 of the reply on merits of the WS is relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this complaint and is being reproduced as under:-
6. That the contents of Para 6 of the complaint are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the total expenses incurred on account of purchase of spare parts, labour and mechanical charges and crane charges is Rs.52,090/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand & Ninety Only). There is no basis for the said claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the surveyor has done quite a detailed assessment of the damages caused and of the cost to be incurred for repairing the said damages. A copy of the said Survey Report is annexed as Annnexure-R-3. It is submitted that the complainant /insured has received a payment of Rs.11445/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Four Hundred & Forty Five Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement in terms of the survey report and has given a discharge voucher. A copy of the said discharge Voucher is annexed as (Annexure-R-4. It is further submitted that the complainant/insured never made a protest against the payment made to him in terms of the survey report. The complainant /insured is, therefore, not entitled to raise any further claim in accordance with the principle of accord and satisfaction.
8. That the contents of Para 8 of the complaint are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the complainant/insurd has been harassed by the respondent company or by the surveyor appointed by the respondent company as alleged or otherwise. It is further denied at the cost of repetition that the surveyor made any illegal demands from the complainant/insured. It is submitted that the complainant/insured has already been paid in terms of the survey report and consent letter given by the complainant/insured.
The OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed rejoinder to reiterate the facts as pleaded in the complaint.
The complainant has filed the evidence by way of his affidavit. He has relied upon the documents Ex-CW1/1 to Ex-CW1/5.
Sh. Rajneesh Kohli, Dy. General Manager has filed his affidavit.
We have heard argument advanced at bar and have perused the record.
The Ld. Counsel for the OP has taken us through the copy of the survey report which has been placed on record. The survey report shows the detailed assessment of the damages caused and of the cost incurred for repairing the said damages. The counsel for the OP contended that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.11,445/- and the company had made the payment as per the assessment made by the surveyor. The Ld. Counsel has contended that the surveyor was an independent person and there is no reason as to why his report should not be believed. We have considered the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the OP with which we agreed. A surveyor appointed to assess the loss is a natural person and his report cannot be brushed aside
without any substantive reason being given on record. The OP who had acted on the basis of the said report is not guilty of any deficiency in service.
Considering the facts in the above case and submission made before us. We direct the OP as under:-
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,445/- being the assessed amount as per the survey report.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
