Haryana

Karnal

345/11

Balwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chollamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rohit Sharma

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                                Complaint No.345 of 2011                                                                           

                                                                     Date of instt.: 10.06.2011

                                                                 Date of decision: 18.02.2016

 

Balwan  Singh son of Sh.Chattar Singh resident of V &PO Thana tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra. .                                                                    ………..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office at “Dare House” 2^nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001, through its Manager.

2.Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company Limited, Branch office Sec. 12, Karnal through  its Branch Manager.

                                                ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-       Sh.Rohit Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER:                  

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-64-3972  insured with the Opposite Parties  for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, vide policy  Certificate No.3362/00487016/000/00,  which was valid from 21.4.2010 to 20.4.2011.  On 26.12.2010  the said vehicle was being driven by Satyawan son of Chatter from Pehowa to village Thana and when the same  reached  near village Gumthala Garhu,  the brakes  of the same failed and due to  fog the driver  could not control and as  a result of that the same hit against a truck and was badly damaged. The matter was immediately reported to the Opposite Parties through mobile No. 94664-36846  on toll free number 1800-200-5544.  On the direction of the  Opposite Parties, the damaged vehicle was parked   in the Garage of  Khan Denting and Painting, Pehowa . Surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties  who inspected the vehicle on  28.12.2010 and again on  20.2.2012. The vehicle was  got repaired from  Associate Motor Spare , Jassy A-C repairing Works, Pehowa, Khan Denting and painting , Pehowa, Vijay Motors , Pehowa , M/s Neeraj Sales Corporation, Pehowa and Malik Auto Electrician,  who issued  bills regarding payments received by them as mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint and thus an amount of approximately Rs.one lac was spent on the repairs. The original bills  alongwith claim form were submitted to the surveyor but the Opposite Parties  paid an amount of Rs.35999/-, only vide cheque No.260669 dated 16.2.2011.  The Opposite Parties declined the request of the complainant to make the payment of the balance amount arbitrarily, illegally and unlawfully, which amounted to deficiency in services on their part due to which he suffered mental pain and harassment apart from the financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved  in the present complaint, which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner; that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant had no privity of contract and he did not fall within the definition of consumer.

 

                   On merits, factum of accident of the vehicle of the complainant and damage to the vehicle in the said accident has not been denied. It has been submitted that claim of the complainant was duly processed. Mr. Rajesh Chhabra was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.36481/- for which the complainant gave consent for settlement of the claim for Rs.35999/-. Accordingly the said amount was paid to him, vide cheque no.260669 dated 16.2.2011 in full and final discharge of his claim, to which he had not objected and accepted the amount voluntarily without any protest . Satisfaction note cum discharge voucher was also issued after acceptance of the amount towards full and final settlement. Therefore, the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct. There was no deficiency in service as alleged. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Sh. Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Manager Legal, Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O6 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

 

6.                It is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-64/3972 was insured with the Opposite Parties and the same was damaged due to accident, which took place on  26.12.2010. Surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties,  who assessed the loss as Rs.36468/- .Thereafter a cheque of Rs.35999/-  was issued to the complainant, which was got encashed by him.  As per the case of the complainant, he had spent an amount of approximately Rs.one lac on the repairs, but the Opposite Parties have refused to pay the balance amount spent by him on the repairs, though he had submitted all the bills of repairs.

 

7.                It is settled proposition of law that surveyors are appointed by the insurance companies under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one  should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. If   for any reason, the report of surveyor is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reasons for not accepting the report. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case  Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance company Limited and another 2009(8) SSC 507 and decisions of Hon’ble National Commission in D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance company Limited 2012 CPJ 272 and National Insurance company Limited Versus Sardar Gurmit Singh  2004(III) CPJ 46 and Puran Mal Versus  Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. revision petition Ano.1244 of 2011 decided on 2.12.2015.

 

8.                Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant has been able to establish that assessment made by the surveyor was wrong. The complainant has produced bills Ex.C11 to Ex.C17 regarding the payments allegedly made by him for repairs of the vehicle.  The bills Ex.C16 and Ex.C17 are with regard to the spare parts purchased from Associate Motor Spares, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. There is no material on record which may show that the vehicle was taken by the complainant to Delhi and the same was repaired by Associates Motor  Spares.  The complaint could purchase spare parts from Associates Motor Spares,   but it is not clear as to who repaired the vehicle with the help of spare parts mentioned in Ex.C16 and Ex.C17. The copy of the report of surveyor Ex.O3 indicates that surveyor disclosed the prices of the parts as per the price list of Toyota .When the prices of the spare parts as mentioned in the report of surveyor are compared with the prices mentioned by Associates Motor Spares in  Ex. C16 and  Ex.C17, it is quite clear that  prices of some spare parts have been mentioned more than the prices of the genuine spare parts of Toyota. Therefore, under such a situation, no  reliance can be placed  upon the bills Ex.C16 and Ex.C17 regarding the amounts  spent by the complainant for purchase of the spare parts. The complainant has not shown that surveyor has any inimical relation with him or made assessment with ulterior motive. There is nothing on record  from which even an inference may be drawn that surveyor was  interested  party and that he willfully and purposely submitted the wrong report. No specific lacuna could be pointed  out by the learned counsel for the complainant in the report of the surveyor. Looking into all  such facts and circumstances, we do not find any valid reason for not accepting the report of surveyor.

 

9.                It is also worthwhile to mention that the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs.35999/- as full and final settlement of his claim and signed the claim satisfaction note cum discharge voucher, the copy of which is Ex.O4. Neither it has been alleged nor there is an iota of evidence of the complainant that his signatures were obtained on Ex.O4  under undue influence , fraud or coercion.  Therefore, under such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to claim more amount for repairs of his vehicle than assessed by the surveyor.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. The same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:18.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Rohit Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:18.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.