JUDGEMENT

Complainant’s case in brief is that complainant is a owner of a car bearing No.WB-06E-7159 and it was insured under the present Insurance Policy but the said vehicle met with an accident on 12.02.2013 and same was reported to the op and it was placed before the authorized Austin Hyundai Service Centre for repairing and lodged a claim to National Insurance Company vide Claim No. 32284.  But after vigorous follow up with National Insurance Company issued a cheque of Rs.12,450/- out of total repairing cost of Rs.47,514/- and in fact the surveyor was appointed by the op who did not properly consider the repairing sheet and job work of the said vehicle by the service centre and fact remains the surveyor did not survey and did not come to a final agreement of the workshop of the Austin Hyundai for the cost of damage.  But he only sent a general letter dated 20.02.2012 to the complainant.  Due to this reason, the workshop also could not start the repairing work and further a letter was sent by NIC or the op on 01.03.2013 claiming some documents of which one was the original driver’s license which could not be produced by the complainant as the driver left the job just after the accident and practically complainant himself made the payments after repair of the car and discharged the car from Austin Hyundai and that payment was made vide receipt No. 5386 dated 27.02.2013 for Rs. 47,514/- and in fact complainant submitted claim after full payment to the Austin Hyundai after repairing but op/Insurance Company did not consider the same and wrongly released a sum of Rs. 12,450/- which was transmitted to the Bank Account of the complainant and fact remains that op did not properly consider the final receipt of the Austin Hyundai who repaired the vehicle and wrongly discharged a very less amount than that of the claim amount and for such sort of services complainant has filed this complaint for relief.

On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt the vehicle met with an accident as stated in the complaint and accordingly the surveyor Tanmoy Sarkar was appointed to assess the loss who inspected the said vehicle and submitted his assessment.  Besides that during such survey work the surveyor took some photograph of the said vehicle and surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 13,450/-, but as such assessment was not proper for which the loss was reassessed and the final assessment was made to the tune of Rs. 12,450/- and such amount was duly transferred to the bank account of complainant by way of NEFT.  So, there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op and the complainant’s claim in respect of bill of Rs. 47,514/- is inflated and denied all other allegations made in the complaint by the op.

Op never asked the complainant for production of original driving license of the driver of the complainant by the surveyor is completely false and for which the present complaint should be dismissed and the claim of the complainant is baseless.

Decision with reasons

On proper consideration of the entire complaint and written version including the documents and particularly complainant’s own application/intimation of claim dated 12.02.2013, it is clear that due to accident left side was totally damaged including head lamp and front panel being brushed, right side of the divider due to heat made by the bus of route No. 1B and fact remains the said vehicle was placed at the garage of Austin Distributor under intimation and that fact of accident was reported to the op.  No doubt op engaged one surveyor Tanmoy Sarkar and loss assessor and as per claim application, damage was caused on the left side including head lamp and front panel but any other damage was disclosed by the complainant in his claim application.  It is also fact that Austin Hyundai repaired the same and handed over the same vehicle after receipt of Rs.47,514/- only on 07.02.2013.

But from the surveyor’s report it is clear that surveyor assessed the loss considering the depreciation cost 50% and surveyor found that damage on the left hand light, LH quarter panel and RH door and damage on the front central portion of the bonnet, left hand Rr. Door and LH running panel, wheel guard of LH and assessed the loss of Rs.10,720/- and out of that depreciation cost of 50% was deducted and Rs.5,360/- was assessed.  He also assessed labour charges of Rs.8,359/-, cost of parts of Rs.11,715/- i.e. total Rs. 20,254/-.  But out of that loss assessor deducted depreciation cost of 50% in that case which is not at all applicable in case of labour charges or cost of parts because cost of new parts cannot be sold in a depreciated amount.

Considering the above fact and circumstances it is proved that the deduction of Rs.5,509/- from labour charge and cost of parts was not justified.  But truth is that surveyor assessed net loss of Rs. 13,650/-, but op/Insurance Company issued Rs. 12,450/-.  But the reason for deduction of Rs.1,000/- was no doubt as less policy excess.  So, Rs. 12,450/- was paid.  But considering the entire fact it is clear that at the time of repairing the said vehicle, complainant also managed to repair some other portion which were damaged due to wear and tear and submitted the claim in respect of that tagging those damages as part of the accident.

But the loss assessor assessed the same on spot after considering the damaged portion as per report of the complainant.  Complainant nowhere stated that some other damages were caused but it was in the LH.  But it was found that at the time of repairing someother damages which were not part of accident was also repaired.  So after considering the surveyor’s report it is found that surveyor pointed out all the damages as pointed out by the complainant in his claim application and in respect of that after deducting depreciation cost, surveyor assessed loss of Rs. 13,660/- and in this regard we have gone through the receipt of the Austin Hyundai wherefrom we find that Austin Hyundai also changed someother external and internal parts of the right side which was not caused due to present accident.

So considering all the above fact at best complainant may get a further sum of Rs. 6,000/- which has been deducted from labour charge and cost of new parts.  But no other amount can be released by the op for which in view of the fact nowhere in the claim application complainant has alleged that the right side of the said vehicle was damaged.  But it is the case that damage was caused on the left side and for left side surveyor no doubt released the amount for such loss after deducting depreciation.  But depreciation in respect of new parts and labour charges cannot be done.  But depreciation can be made in respect of other frontal parts i.e. headlight bonnet bracket and radiator support, wheel guard etc and that was rightly done.

Moreover considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in (2000) 10 SC Cases 19, it is clear that in case of assessment of loss in their document is the report of the surveyor and Insurance Company is bound to follow the said document at the time of releasing the insured amount for loss or damages against any policy.  In this regard we have also gone through another report, reported in (2009) 3 WBLR 188 wherefrom it is found that the reports of the surveyor are to be given due importance of report of the surveyor could become the basis of the settled claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by the insured.

Considering the above ruling including the present fact and circumstances, we have gathered that there is no apparent deficiency and negligence on the part of the op.  But fact remainsat the time of submitting the said job chart and repairing cost by the Austin Hyundai one item was left and that was subsequently reassessed and after considering all the above fact, it is found that present complainant pointed out three defects/damages of the vehicle on the left side.  But he repaired left side and other sides and other parts in respect of which there is no nexus in between the other previous damages and the present accident. 

Fact remains in most of the cases after minor damages caused due to accident, owner of the vehicle place the vehicle to the service centre and asked him to make it a new after changing all and thereafter they claimed Insurance money and in that case same path was adopted by the complainant and it is the common practice of the vehicle owners in almost all the cases.  But truth is that the policy was valid from 19.10.2012 to 18.10.2013 at 08:40 AM i.e. after lapse of 16 months that accident took place and in fact request for appointment of surveyor was received on 14.02.2013 and accident took place on 12.02.2013 and survey was made on 15.02.2013 and 19.02.2013 placed before Austin Hyundai and as per claim the insured did not report to the police and from the particular list of damage, it is found that front bonnet and front left side and head light, LH Rr door and LH running panel, LH Fr door, Right Quarter panel, LH Quarter panel and Rr RH Door and those items were found as damaged due to accident and surveyor assessed the loss and submitted report and that was sent to the complainant. 

Thereafter it was assessed and op released Rs.12,450/-.  But considering the deduction as made by the surveyor it is found that in case of labour charge no depreciation cost may be charged and for which complainant is further entitled to Rs.6,000/- only in addition to already paid Rs. 12,450/- out of the total claim.  So, in the circumstances op Insurance company is hereby directed to release a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant at once and without any fail and considering the entire claim matter is settled and in fact in this case deficiency and negligence is not established by the complainant against the op for which the final order is passed in favour of the complainant by directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

Thus the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

Op/Insurance Company is hereby directed to release and pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and accordingly the entire claim dispute shall be treated as finally disposed.

Op/Insurance Company is directed to comply the order very strictly failing which the penal action shall be taken against op and daily penal interest of Rs. 200/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree.