Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 393.
Instituted on : 11.07.2012
Decided on : 14.03.2016.
Dharambir Singh s/o Sh. Sultan Singh village Silana Teh. & Distt. Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.(through branch manager), 1st Floor Shahnai Banquet Hall, 98-101, Civil Road, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-14F-3800 make Mahindra Xylo and this vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide cover note no.A7674802 valid from 12.10.2010 to 11.10.2011, IDV Rs.717250/-. It is averred that on 28.11.2010 the above said vehicle was got damaged by some party of village Daulatabad to large extent in group clash and the vehicle was taken in custody by police in FIR No.136 dated 28.11.2010 by P.S.Gurgaon. It is averred that said vehicle was got released on superdari on 29.10.2011 and as per direction given by the opposite party, complainant got repaired the said vehicle from Sterling Motor company Gurgaon which is authorized repair agency of Mahindra vehicle. It is averred that the total expenditure on repair was Rs.244819/- and opposite party has paid only Rs.40333/- to repair agency directly whereas the vehicle was comprehensively insured by the opposite party. It is averred that opposite party refused to pay the balance repairing amount of Rs.204486/- to the complainant. It is averred that act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.204486/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the intimation to the answering opposite party has been given to the opposite party after one year of accident. It is denied that the total expenditure of the vehicle was Rs.244819/- . It is averred that the answering opposite party had paid the amount of Rs.40333/- according to the surveyor assessment. It is averred that the surveyor instructed the complainant to repair his vehicle as per allowed parts for repair but complainant had got repaired both allowed and disallowed parts of vehicle which is not permissible. It is averred that the answering opposite party has rejected the payment of bills which are not covered. It is averred that the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount from the opposite party. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and that the vehicle of the complainant got damaged in fight between the two groups. The complainant had filed a claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R2 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.40333/- which has been paid by the opposite party to the complainant. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that he spent a sum of Rs.244819/- on the repair of vehicle from the authorized repair agency of the opposite party whereas the opposite party has only paid the amount of Rs.40333/- which amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant has prayed for balance repair amount alongwith interest and compensation. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that the loss has been assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex.R2 and the same has been paid to the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any further claim.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim has been paid to the complainant as per the report of surveyor. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside,” Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2010)CPJ 272 (NC) titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Kumar, has held that: “Surveyor’s report has considerable evidential value, cannot be ignored, unless discredited by producing contrary evidence- Settlement of claim on repair basis directed as per surveyor’s report” and Hon’ble National Commission in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”.
8. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the opposite parties have paid the amount of claim keeping in view the report of surveyor. As such the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
