Date of Institution :   13.09.2010

                                                                                 Date of Decision    : 25.07.2011

                                                                                  -------------------------------------

 

Sh. Kidar Nath Sharma resident of House No.148, Sector 55, Chandigarh.

                                                                        …..Complainant.

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, SCO No.78-79, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.

Argued By:Sh. N. S. Jagdeva, Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the OP.

 

                        Sh. Kidar Nath Sharma has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed: -

i)                    To pay Rs.12,352/- as claim amount to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum;

ii)                   To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony.

iii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                     In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Maruti Car bearing Regd.No.CH-03-A-5344. He got the said car comprehensively insured from OP vide Cover Note (Annexure C-2). He paid a sum of Rs.2,462/- as premium. The said car was insured for the period from 19.6.2010 to 18.6.2011.

                        According to the complainant on 27.6.2010, his daughter was on her way to Palsora Colony and was driving the said car. In the way, two bulls were fighting on road. The said oxen hit the car resulting damage to the front portion and the wind screen. In the meantime, a Tempo crossing the said car touched  its lift side as a result of it, the left portion of the car was also damaged. The complainant informed the OP regarding the said accident. OP appointed a surveyor who inspected the car. Thereafter, the complainant got the car repaired and spent Rs.16,935/-. He submitted his claim to the OP and also submitted all the relevant documents. However, according to the complainant, to his surprise, OP offered a sum of Rs.4,583/- only. Despite the fact that the complainant approached OP a number of times, OP is not willing to pay the entire amount of Rs.16,935/- spent by the complainant on the repairs of his car.

                        In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                     In the reply filed by OP, it has been admitted that the vehicle bearing Regd. No. CH-03-A-5344 was comprehensively insured with it for the period from 19.6.2010 to 18.6.2011. According to OP, on receipt of the information regarding the accident, Er. Ajay Kanwar was appointed Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The said surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,584.70Ps and submitted his detailed report dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure R-3) along with detailed assessment (Annexure R-4). According to OP, the said amount has been paid to the complainant. So, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and the complaint deserves dismissal.

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

5.                     Annexure C-5 is the copy of bill issued by Mohali Motors. From the said bill, it is apparent that the complainant spent a sum of Rs.16,935/- for the repair of the car. The complainant has also deposed to this effect in his affidavit. Annexure R-3 is the report of the surveyor. From this report, it is apparent that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,584.70Ps only. It is also apparent from this report that the surveyor did not consider the claim for the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of Bulb 12 V 60/55; Moulding FR Fender LH; Moulding FR Door R and Moulding RR Door R.  No reason, whatsoever, has been given by the surveyor for rejection of the claim for these parts. Even reason for assessing the labour charges to the tune of Rs.2,125/- has also not been given by the surveyor in his report. The complainant has deposed in his affidavit that a Tempo crossed the car touching its left side resulting into damage to the car. Thus, from the affidavit furnished by the complainant, it is also proved that the left side of the car was also damaged in the same accident. So, refusal to grant claim for the abovementioned parts is illegal and arbitrary, which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.12,350.30Ps, which the OP has refused to pay.

6.                     In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OP to:-

i)          Pay an amount of Rs.12,350.30Ps to the complainant to indemnify the loss suffered by him in the accident;

 ii)        Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

iii)         Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

7.                     This order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.19,350.30Ps i.e. [Rs.12,350.30 + Rs.7,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.07.06.2010 till the date of actual payment besides the payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

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

Present:          None.

 

                                                                        ---

 

                        The case was reserved on 25.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.