Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/16

Deepak Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

DM National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

In person

26 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  16 of 12.03.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     26.07.2018

 

Deepak Sharma son of Ram Parkash Sharma, resident of House No.F-202, Sun Enclave Tower, Shampura, Rupnagar Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

     1.     DM National Insurance Company, Phase-5, Mohali through its             Branch Manager 

     2.     National Insurance Company, Branch Nangal Chowk,           Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager.  

                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 Sh. Deepak Sharma, complainant in person 

 Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.Ps

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.    Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum and also liable Rs.20,000/- for harassment and cost of litigation. The labour charges Rs.72,00/- as per M.H. Honda Cash memo for 13114/-.  

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant is owner of Scooter bearing No.PB-12-U-3755, Active Honda and the said scooter was insured with National Insurance Company ad same is valid from 11.11.2017 to 10.11.2018 and the value of the scooter mentioned as Rs.27,000/- and premium amount Rs.1251/- paid by the complainant. In the month of October 2017, the complainant met with an accident and got medical treatment from PGI Chandigarh and he is under treatment. Complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment and Rs.13,113/-. The complainant had applied for the compensation with the O.P. and O.P. passed the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.6579/- in favour of the complainant and said amount has been transferred to the complainant's account on 1.3.2018. The complainant went to the office of O.P. at Rupnagar and they misbehaved with the complainant and he moved an application to the higher authority in this regard, but no action was taken against him. The complainant was tortured by the Gurdaspur Policy on duty on 16.3.1984 and the complainant was admitted in physiatrist Sandhu Hospital Patiala for one month and thereafter shifted to PGI Chandigarh and taking treatment from PGI Chandigarh since last 30 years and now branch manager of National Insurance Company, Rupnagar also tortured the complainant since last six months and the complainant was visited in the office of National Insurance Company but they misbehaved with him. They do taken any action against Sr. Branch Manager after giving complaint to CMD Calcutta and regional manager Sector 35, Chandigarh. Hence, this complaint. 

  3.  On notice, O.Ps. appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is false frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.Ps. On merits, it is stated that the scooter having registration No.PB-12-U-3755 stands insured with answering O.P. vide policy No.404701/31/17/6200004551 w.e.f. 11.11.2017 to 10.11.2018 strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant has intimated the loss on 12.12.2017 vide intimation letter of the even date with regard to the loss of the insured scooter. Upon receiving the intimation, the competent authority of the company has deposited Er. Rajneesh Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessment of the loss who has submitted his report dated 30.12.2017 to the company. The competent authority of insurance company has processed the claim as per terms and condition of the insurance policy and has assessed the liability of Rs.6579/- and has made the payment through RTGS to the complainant. The claim has been paid in accordance with the assessment made by the surveyor and as per the terms and condition of the policy, complainant is not entitled for any other amount in this regard. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.   

4.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered her his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Sr. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11 and also tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Rajneesh Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence.    

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.   Complainant Deepak Sharma, made prayer that he got his scooter having registration No. PB-12-U-3755 and insured with OPs for the valid period from 11.11.2017 to 10.11.2018. Unfortunately, in the month of October 2017, scooter met with an accident and it was got repaired by spending Rs.13,113/-. The claim was lodged and OPs only paid Rs.6579/- through his account on 1.3.2018. He further made prayer that non payment of the residuary spare parts/labour charges amounts to deficiency in service and prayed that OP be directed to make the payment of the balance amount with cost.

7.    OPs counsel Sh. Amit Gupta, argued that so far the scooter having registration No.PB-12-U-3755 or the policy for the valid period from 11.11.2017 to 10.11.2018, deposit of premium Rs.1251/- against the value of the scooter Rs.27,000/- are admitted facts. When complainant reported the accident/damages of the scooter then his claim was processed through surveyor Rajneesh Gupta, who assessed the loss, keeping in view the price of the spare parts as well as labour. By deducting depreciation in spare parts as well as in labour then by deducting less excess clause/salvage give opinion for the payment i.e. net payable amount Rs.6579/- According to the report of the surveyor the said amount was paid through account of the complainant. OP is duty bound to pay after deducting depreciation qua the repair of the scooter which relates to the accident or damages which fall within the policy period. If the repair not relates to the policy period then for that payment OP is not liable. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.    Both the parties are admitted qua the deposit of premium, issuance of policy as well as occurrence i.e. why OPs paid Rs.6579/-. But with the said payment complainant is not satisfied and has approached to this Forum, so it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

9.    Coming to the real controversy in support of the claim, complainant placed on file his sworn affidavit Ex.C1 which is in consonance to the complaint then placed on file Tax invoice Ex.C2 consisting three pages and the expenses are recorded Rs.13114/- Ex.C3 is the photocopy of the policy and Ex.C4 is one complaint by the complainant. Ex.C5 is the statement of account vide which payment was made. To rebut this OP placed on file Ex.OP1 affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Branch Manager, Ex.OP2 report of Rajneesh Gupta, Ex.OP3 copy of policy then Ex.OP4 intimation of accident including report of surveyor. The surveyor in detail mentioned the parts then labour and considering the model of the scooter as well as value, he assessed the loss towards parts Rs.2072/- towards labour Rs.4656/- and after deducting less excess clause said Rs.6579/- is the actual loss payable to the complainant. The complainant though placed on file the tax invoice but not placed on file any expert report of the surveyor/ investigator. But at the same time OPs placed on file expert report mentioning the loss of the scooter actually occurred at the fateful day i.e. month of October 2017.  The O.P. has placed on file some other documents and try to convince this Forum OPs are only duty bound for the payment of the repair charges which actually occurred during the valid period of policy with less excess deduction. The forum has closely appreciated the evidence and the submission made by the complainant as well OP counsel, finally has come to the conclusion that complainant remain fail in proving deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.    

10.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stand dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 

11.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .26.07.2018                          PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER