Haryana

Ambala

CC/318/2014

DR.VIJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN MEHTA

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                  Complaint No. 318 of 2014

                                                                  Date of Instt.:  14.11.2014.

                                                                  Date of decision: 25.09.2017.                                                

Dr.Vijay Kumar son of Om Parkash resident of VPO Kapalmochan, Tehsil Bilaspur District Yamunanagar.

                                                                                       ...Complainant.

Versus

1. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited 3^rd Floor, Minerva Complex, (Above Big Bazaar) Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. through its Branch Manager.
2. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited Corporate & Registered Office, 6^th floor, Tower 3, India Bulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.      

                SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                   

 

Present: -    Sh.Tarun Mehta, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.V.P.Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased car Ford Figo EXI 1.4 TDI BSIV, Sea Grey Color bearing registration No.HR71B-1980 on 31.01.2012 and got the same comprehensively insured for R.3,57,000/- and also renewed from OPs vide cover note NO.E3993403 having validity from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015 by paying the premium to the tune of Rs.10,890/-. On 02.04.2014 at about 11 P.M. the car met with an accident and got badly damaged while it was being driven by Dr.Krishan Lal. After intimating the Ops about the accident the car was towed to M/s Kanav Motors Pvt. Limited after paying a sum of Rs.6500/- as charges. The complainant lodged the claim with OPs and thereafter surveyor was deputed who had taken estimate for the repair of the car. At the time of insurance, it was intimated to the complainant that it was cash-less insurance but the complainant was taken by surprise on knowing that service centre had demanded Rs.1,65,775/- for repair of the vehicle which was got deposited by his son-in-law. The vehicle was got repaired and a total sum of Rs.1,87,275/- was paid as repair cost which was to be indemnified by the Ops as per policy but it had only made a payment of Rs.75923.31/- which was received by the complainant under protest without prejudice to his right to claim the difference with interest despite having signed the blank voucher from him without letting him to know the amount and reason for deduction of huge amount. Feeling aggrieved on account of non-payment of amount spent on repairs, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.07.2014 to the OPs to pay the balance amount of repairs i.e. Rs.1,11,352/- with interest @ 18 % per annum from 02.04.2014 and Rs.25,000/- as compensation besides Rs.3300/- as charges of legal notices but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                          Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, estoppal and jurisdiction etc. It has been submitted that the complainant has received a sum of Rs.75923/- vide cheque No.097631 dated 25.06.2014 from OPs as full and final settlement of his claim by executing discharge voucher voluntarily with full knowledge after going through the contents there of upto his satisfaction and once the payment has been received unconditionally then the complainant is ceased to be a consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. After receiving the intimation about the accident surveyor was deputed but his claim was not fit to be entertained but keeping in view the financial interest of the complainant the claim was lodged and processed bonafidely. The vehicle was already taken and opened in the service centre prior to intimation. The surveyor conducted the survey minutely and submitted his detailed report dated 15.05.2014 qua the nature and extent of loss/ damages and thereafter Rs.75923/- were recommended to be payable and after approval this amount was paid to the complainant vide cheque No.097631 dated 25.06.2014 without any protest from the complainant. The cashless is not a policy but only a facility and the insurance policy obtained by the complainant was cashless insurance policy. The complainant has signed the discharge voucher after knowing the reasons for deduction of some amount as per terms and conditions of the policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and even there was no delay in settling the claim of the complainant because it has to go through several exercises till the approval of the claim by the competent authority. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R14.

3.                          We have gone through the case file with the assistance of the counsel for the parties besides going through the record carefully and minutely.

4.                          It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained insurance policy having validity from 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015 from the OPs for car bearing registration No.HR71-B-1980 which met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy and the same was got repaired from M/s Kanav Motors Private Limited by spending a sum of Rs.1,65,775/- by the complainant (Annexure C4). It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.75,923.31/- has already been received by the complainant through cheque.

5.                          The surveyor had inspected the vehicle on 08.04.2014 at M/s Kanav Motors, Ambala Cantt. and in his report (Annexure R8) he had assessed the payable amount to the tune of Rs.75923/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy which was paid to the complainant and regarding this complainant had furnished Satisfaction/discharge voucher (Annexure R11). As per version of the complainant, total bill to the tune of Rs.165775/- (Annexure C4) was given by the service centre and payment was also made by the complainant under protest but despite that the OPs had only paid Rs.75923/- through cheque. At the time of arguments counsel for the complainant has placed on record calculation sheet and argued that the OPs have not fully indemnify the claim and the surveyor had wrongly assessed the lesser amount than the billed amount after violating the general instructions issued by IRDA by showing the some items (repaired) to be of rubber/plastic and some items were of metal.  As per IRDA instructions the rate of depreciation qua the parts of rubber/plastic is upto 50 % and the rate of depreciation qua the parts of metal is upto 15 % from the date of purchase of the vehicle upto three years. The vehicle in question was purchased 31.01.2012; therefore, it does not exceed three year. So, there is a short fall of Rs.46432/- as per the calculation sheet. On the other hand the OPs have placed on file the detailed report wherein they have mentioned the manner of deduction for depreciation and rejection of the parts which were not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

6.                We have gone through the details attached by the opposite parties wherein the detail of depreciation has been shown. In the detail item Nos.8, 9, 19, 20, 22 have been shown to be not related to the accident and some items have also been shown as consumable i.e. item Nos.8, 9, 12, 23, 31 to 39. So, this Forum comes to this conclusion that the Ops have clearly mentioned the reasons for deduction of depreciation of the items being not covered which is justified.  The surveyor had rightly assessed the amount to the tune of Rs.75,923/- (Annexure R8) which was duly approved/released by the OPs-insurance company as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the same has been received by the complainant through cheque. Since the amount assessed by the surveyor in his report is justified, therefore, there is no reason to discuss on another points, therefore, the case laws titled as M.L.Spinners Pvt. Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited II (2014) CPJ 692 (NC), Arora Knitting Industries Pvt. Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited III (2002) CPJ 205 (NC), Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sony Cheriyan II (1999) CPJ 13 (SC), Progressive Packaging Industries Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another 2003 (1) CLT 552, Jess Ram Khushi Ram Pvt. Limited & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. II (2014) CPJ 280 (NC) and United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & others  Vol.CXXIII (1999-3) The Punjab Law Reporter, 409 (SC)  relied upon by learned counsel for the OPs and the case law titled as United India Insurance Company Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Others II 1999 CPJ 10  and Singureddy Ramana Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors. I (2003) CPJ 37 (NC) relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant, are not required to be discussed.

7.                          Keeping in view the above discussion and the position explained above we have no hitch to reach at conclusion that the present complaint deserves dismissal because the amount assessed by the surveyor and approved/released by the OPs/insurance Company has already been released to the complainant through cheque. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 25.09.2017                                                (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT                                                           

 

                                                                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                     MEMBER

                                                           

                                                                           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                     MEMBER