Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/344/2016

Davinder Bindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pavinder Singh Bedi

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/344/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	16/05/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	19/12/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Davinder Bindal S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Bindal, C/o Tirupati Medipack, Suketi Road Kala Amb Tehsil Nahan, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh – 173005.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 78-79, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……………  Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    MRS.SURJET KAUR            PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Pavinder Singh Bedi, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The succinct facts of the present Complaint are that the Complainant got his Mitsubishi Pajero bearing Regn. No. HR-06P-0029 insured from Opposite Party vide Policy Annexure-A. During the currency of the aforesaid Policy, on 25.06.2014, the aforesaid car caught fire and was extensively damaged. A DDR to this effect was lodged and necessary intimation was also given to the Opposite Party. It has been averred that the Opposite Party deputed B&S Loss Assessors to assess the loss and after the spot inspection, the Complainant got his vehicle repaired from M/s Premier Motor Garage by paying a sum of Rs.1,73,444/- vide bill Annexure-B. The Complainant also submitted all the necessary documents, as called for by the Opposite Party, for settlement of his genuine claim. However, to this utter surprise, the aforesaid Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,531/- vide mail Annexure-C. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party got the aforesaid amount deposited in his account, without his permission (Bank Statement Annexure-D). With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party, in its reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case has pleaded that on receipt of intimation regarding the incident, M/s B&S Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors, was appointed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect the vehicle and assess the claim. The car in question was taken to M/s Premier Motor Garage, Panchula for repairs, where the assessment was done. The Surveyor had assessed the liability of the Company to the tune of Rs.40,531/-. The amount, as assessed by the Surveyor, had already been released to the Complainant, keeping in view the surveyor report and terms & conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the Complainant is not entitled to any further amount beyond the report of the surveyor. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that his claim towards the insured vehicle was partly paid by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has urged that he was only paid Rs.40,531/- whereas, he had spent an amount of Rs.1,73,444/ for the repairs of the vehicle in question to M/s Premier Motor Garage vide Bill dated 19.08.2014 (Annexure-B). The sole contention of the Opposite Party is that the Surveyor & Loss Assessor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.40,531/- only, which stood paid to the Complainant.

 

8.      There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.1,73,444/- on the repair of the vehicle in question and the Opposite Party failed to provide him the Surveyor Report, in order to know on what basis he had made the assessment of loss for just Rs.40,531/-. After meticulously going through the Surveyor Report (Annexure R-2) produced on record by the Opposite Party, we find that the observations made by the Surveyor in his report is without any basis, in as much as, the Surveyor has not given any reasoning for his observations made in the said report. We are of the opinion that the car caught the fire as a result of which the wires also got burnt, thus the observation of the Surveyor that a short circuiting in the wiring has triggered the fire appears to be illogical and cannot be relied upon. Hence, the action of the Opposite Party in allowing part payment only, relying blindly on the Surveyor Report, is not wholly justified, and the balance amount of Rs.1,32,913.35/- needs to be paid to the Complainant.      

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

 

[a]  Pay the balance amount of Rs.1,32,913.35/- to the Complainant;    

 

[b]  Pay Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

10.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, it shall pay the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr. No.[c] above.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

		Sd/-
Announced 19th Dec., 2016		[SURJEET KAUR] PRESIDING MEMBER
		Sd/-                         [SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                                     MEMBER
“Dutt”