Haryana

Karnal

583/2011

Dharambir S/o Jita - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC EGRO Gernal Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kamboj

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No. 583 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.: 14.09.2011

                                                               Date of decision:16.08.2016

 

Dharambir son of Jita resident of village Shahjanpur Tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

 

HDFC EGO General Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 

  ………… Opposite Party

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for the Opposite party.

                    

 ORDER:

 

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his tractor bearing registration no.HR-05Y-5896 with the opposite party, vide policy  no.002300183174, valid from 27.7.2010 to 26.7.2011 for insured value of Rs.4,27,500/-. On 6.12.2010 he drove his tractor from his village to Gharaunda. At about 6.30 p.m. he parked the tractor in kachcha portion of the road and went to the fields. After sometime, when he returned it was found that the rear portion of the tractor was damaged. He immediately gave intimation to opposite party, who got the tractor inspected. He was asked by the opposite party to get the tractor repaired and payment of the repairs would be made to him. He got repaired the tractor from M/s Haryana Automobiles, Karnal and spent an amount of Rs.59000/- on the repairs. Thereafter, he submitted all the bills and claim form with the opposite party, but the opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and his claim was not settled. In this way, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant failed to submit the required documents i.e. copy of First Information Report, which was necessary for processing the claim, despite repeated requests. Ultimately, his claim was made as ‘No Claim’ due to non-filing of the required documents, vide letter dated 17.2.2011.  Moreover, no spot survey of the damaged tractor was got conducted by the complainant and the tractor was already dismantled even prior visit of the surveyor to the workshop. In this way, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. C1, affidavit of  Jahid Hussain Ex.C2 and documents Ex.C1 to C5 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Abhishek Kushwaha Assistant Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to O4 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The tractor of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-05Y-5896 was insured with the opposite party and the same was damaged on 6.12.2010 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. Intimation was given to the opposite party, who appointed surveyor and got assessed the loss. The complainant got repaired his tractor from m/s Haryana Automobiles, Karnal and thereafter lodged claim. The claim of the complainant was made as ‘No Claim’ by the opposite party, vide letter dated 17.2.2011, on the ground that he did not submit the copy of First Information Report despite repeated requests.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that it is not the case of the complainant that he lodged First Information Report or Daily Diary Report with the police regarding damage to his tractor. As per his case, he parked the tractor on kachcha portion of the road and went to the fields and when he returned, he found the rear portion of the tractor damaged. He had no seen as to who had caused damage to the tractor. Therefore, under such a situation when First Information Report or Daily Diary Report was not lodged with the Police, there could be no question of submitting copy of the First Information Report to the opposite party.  The copy of the First Information Report was not necessary for processing the claim under such facts and circumstances. Therefore, making the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ merely on the ground that the copy of the First Information Report was not produced was neither justified nor legal. Therefore, such act on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.

8.                Admittedly, the surveyor was appointed by opposite party, who assessed the loss. The copy of the report of the surveyor is Ex.O1, according to which he assessed the total claim as Rs.31,309/-. The complainant has alleged that he paid Rs.59,000/-for repairs of his tractor and he has produced the copies of the bills Ex.C3 to C5 as well as affidavit of Jahid Hussain proprietor of M/s Haryana Automobiles regarding the amount spent on the repairs of the tractor. Major items mentioned in Ex.C4 and repair charges mentioned in Ex.C3 have also been mentioned in the assessment made by the surveyor. In Ex.C4 an amount of Rs.10,500/- has also been shown for 50 litres of gear oil. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party during the course of the arguments that opposite party was not liable to pay for the gear oil and other parts purchased by the complainant were not required to be replaced as per the report of the surveyor, which cannot be ignored.

9.                It is settled proposition of law that the report of surveyor has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise. Non-consideration of the surveyor’s report results in serious miscarriage of justice. One should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by Surveyor. In this context reference with advantage  made to D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 CPJ 272 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills ltd. & Others 2000(10) SCC 19 and Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2009 (8) SCC-507.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any term or condition of the insurance policy or any rule or instruction according to which the complainant is entitled to get reimbursement for gear oil as well as for purchase of the parts not found damaged by the surveyor at the time of assessment of the loss. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to discard the report of the surveyor. Accordingly, the complainant is held entitled to get an amount of Rs.31,309/- as compensation for damages to his tractor.

11.              As a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.31,309/- the loss assessed by the surveyor  to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member