Haryana

Kurukshetra

78/2017

Nasib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Generali - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Gupta

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 78 of 2017.

Date of instt. 06.04.2017. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 11.07.2019.

 

Nasib Singh aged 40 years son of Shri Kashmir Singh, resident of Old Anaj Mandi Ismailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. The Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office 6^th Floor, Tower-3, Indiabulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai- 400013.

 

2. Branch Office, The Future General India Insurance Company Limited, 3^rd Floor Raj Mkt. Sadar Bazar Ambala Cantt.

 

3. Branch Office, The Future General India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 354, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula.

 

4. Shri Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Madan Lal (Insurance Agent) r/o Guru Kirpa Insurance Kaithal Road, Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for complainant.    

 Sh. Mohit Goel, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3.

 Opposite party no.4 exparte.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nasib Singh against The Future General (it is Generali) India and others, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant got insured his Car model Chevrolet Beat bearing registration No. HR 41F-1580 of 2012 model from opposite party vide cover note No.F-8662902(2014-V-3199902-FPV) on 6.7.2014 w.e.f. 6.7.2014 to 5.7.2015 for the insured declared value of Rs.4,28,500/-. That on 29.6.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., the car of complainant met with an accident as suddenly an animal came on the road near Patran road Samana. The complainant gave the information to the company and registered the claim with the ops and the ops have givent he claim letter no.VV-531684 vide request letter dated 23.7.2015 and M/s Grover Associates was deputed to carry out the survey on the same day. That complainant brought his car in the workshop of Bharat Motors Near Garg Nursing Home, Kurukshetra with the help of crain on 29.6.2015 and spent Rs.3500/- in this regard and the car of complainant is still standing there and the above said workshop has estimated the loss of Rs.5,14,761/-. It is further stated that ops again wrote a letter dated 14.9.2015 to the complainant demanding the repair estimate from Chevrolet authorized dealership for assessing the loss and ops again wrote the letter dated 19.10.2015 to the complainant by referring the report of Surveyor M/s Raman Auto Surveyors that the loss is under 75% of insured declared value and vehicle is repairable. That ops again wrote a letter dated 10.11.2015 to the complainant to get his vehicle repaired with due instructions of Surveyor M/s Raman Auto Surveyors. It is further averred that complainant has taken the estimate of loss of Rs.3,83,828/- from VPS Motors, Kurukshetra but the ops have not given any response in this regard. That complainant also got served a legal notice dated 16.8.2015 upon the ops but to no effect. It is further averred that previously the complainant also filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala which was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction on 7.11.2016. The act of the ops clearly amounts to great deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability and suppression of material facts. It is submitted that answering ops deputed a surveyor namely Raman Auto Surveyors & Loss Assessors, duly licensed by IRDA, subject to repair of vehicle by repairer and inspection of the vehicle during repair and re inspection after repair with production of salvage and submission of invoice. The loss assessed by surveyor is Rs.2,07,520/- which is much below 75% of IDV i.e. Rs.4,28,500/-, hence it cannot be a total loss according the policy conditions and according to surveyor it is repairable. It is further submitted that answering ops wrote a letter dated 14.9.2015 to the complainant that he has submitted estimate of vehicle with replacement of complete body shell whereas mandatory child parts are available of body shell with cheverolet authorized dealership but in the case of complainant his vehicle was lying in a local workshop and parts rate on very higher side in repair estimate issued by Bharat Motors in comparison with vehicle manufacturer’s spare parts price. It was further requested to the complainant to provide repair estimate from Chevorlet authorized dealership to assess the loss fairly, but there was no reply from complainant. Again on 19.10.2015, the answering ops sent reminder to complainant but there was no reply from complainant. On 10.11.2015, answering ops wrote another reminder to the complainant and mentioned in it to get repaired the vehicle from Cheverolet authorized dealership as per instructions from approved surveyor and also mentioned that in case of failure to do so, the answering ops will close the file as No claim. Hence, the competent authority closed the claim of complainant as No claim. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has neither replied any letter of the answering ops nor came forward to repair his vehicle as mentioned in the letters. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.  

4.             Opposite party no.4 did not appear despite notice sent through registered post and was proceeded against exparte.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexures C1 to C23. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 to 3 tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             It is an admitted fact that the car of the complainant bearing registration No. HR 41F-1580 was insured with the opposite party for the period 6.7.2014 to 5.7.2015 for the insured declared value of Rs.4,28,500/-, which fact is also proved from the copy of cover note Annexure C11. It is also an admitted fact that car of complainant met with an accident on 29.6.2015 i.e. during subsistence of the policy in question and surveyor was appointed. In this regard survey report is placed on file by op as Ex.R1  in which the surveyor has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.2,07,520/-. Though, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.5,14,761/- from the opposite party on the basis of total loss on the basis of estimate but the documents placed on file by complainant in this regard are only estimate and not final bill and we are of the opinion that ops are liable to make the payment of the amount on the basis of survey report which does not call for any interference and is not shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable as according to the survey report the vehicle is repairable. Moreover, the complainant himself is relying upon two estimates i.e. for Rs.5,14,761/- and Rs.3,83,828/- i.e. of high difference. So, it can be safely held that report of surveyor wherein he has assessed the net loss of Rs.2,07,520/- is genuine and reliable. In this regard, we also find force from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for ops in case titled as Mashaal Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. vs. NIC, II (2016) CPJ (74) in which it has been held that “Surveyor’s report, who carries out inspection needs to be accepted unless it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly untenable.”  We further find force in this regard from the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for ops in case titled as Essen Modern Rice Mill (P) Ltd. vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. 2016 CPJ 596 (NC) wherein it has been held that “Since assessment made by surveyor cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide, no ground for interfering with assessment made by surveyor is made out. Directions issued to pay amount as assessed by surveyor alongwith interest.” The ops no.1 to 3 are liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,07,520/- to the complainant as op no.4 is mere agent.

8.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to pay the amount of Rs.2,07,520/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 6.4.2017 till actual payment within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. We further direct the ops no.1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 11.07.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.