Punjab

Sangrur

CC/610/2014

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri R.S. Toor

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  610

                                                Instituted on:    11.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       18.03.2015

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Darbara Singh R/o Rampura, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri R.S.Toor, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a Mohindra Pick UP Maxi truck bearing registration number PB-13-AF-7689 for transporting the milk for earning his livelihood by way of self employment, which was got insured with the OP for the period from 15.6.2013 to 14.6.2014 against cover note number 10836929.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that when the complainant was coming on the vehicle which was duly loaded with the milk on 13.5.2014 at about 9.00 AM from village Bhanbora, the said vehicle in question met with an accident near Nehar Village Bhanbhora and Bhanbhori as it struck with a tree in order to save the school children. It is further stated that at the time accident there was 1372 liter milk in the drums in the vehicle in question, out of which 830 liter milk caused to flow on roads due to accident.  Accordingly, the complainant lodged the claim with the OP, who deputed the surveyor to inspect the accidental vehicle.  It is further stated that at the advice of the OP, the complainant got the vehicle repaired from the workshop of M.S.Motor Garage, Sangrur, where he spent an amount of Rs.43,236/- vide bill number 450 dated 8.5.2014.  Further case of the complainant is that the OP paid only an amount of Rs.32,000/- to the complainant against the above said loss of Rs.43,236/-. The complainant approached the OP so many times for payment of the remaining claim amount, but nothing happened.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,386/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further to pay Rs.29,000/- on account of loss of milk and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, the OP has taken some preliminary objections on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature as the OP has already paid an amount of Rs.31,037/- through NEFT in the bank account bearing number 55148954564 with the State Bank of Patiala, branch Bhawanigarh on 4.10.2014 to the complainant as per the report of the surveyor, that the complainant is not a  consumer and that the complainant has filed the complaint by concealing material facts.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP.  It is further averred that after receiving the information regarding accident of the vehicle in question, the OP immediately appointed Shri Anuj Khosla, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss, who inspected the said vehicle at M.S.Motor Garage, Dhuri and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.31,037/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy, which has already been paid to the complainant in his account. It has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP thereafter and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of sheet regarding quantity of milk, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of bills, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-17 photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OPs/1 affidavit, Ex.OPs/2 copy of survey report, Ex.OPs/3 copy of policy, Ex.OPs/4 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OPs/5 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration number PB-13-AF-7689 is insured with the OP for the period from 15.6.2013 to 14.6.2014 under cover note number 10836929, a copy of which on record is Ex.C2.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 13.5.2014 and damaged in the accident, the intimation of which was given to the OP.  The OP immediately on receipt of intimation about the accident of the vehicle in question appointed Shri Anuj Khosla, surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.31,037/- vide his report dated 10.6.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.OPs/2.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that an amount of Rs.31,037/- has already been transferred to his account ( though the complainant has wrongly mentioned the receipt of Rs.32000/- from the OP regarding the claim in question). 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has prayed in the para number 6 of the complaint that the OP be directed to pay Rs.38,386/- to the complainant.  Since the Op has already paid an amount of Rs.31,037/- to the complainant as admitted by him in the complaint itself, then we failed to understand then how he has claimed the amount of Rs.38,386/- from the Op.  It seems that the complainant himself is not clear that what  amount he should claim from the OP and how.

 

8.             In the present case, the OP has already paid an amount of Rs.31,037/- to the complainant in view of the survey report, Ex.OPs/2 submitted by Shri Anuj Khosla. A bare perusal of the report Ex.OP2/s clearly reveals that the same is according to the policy terms and conditions and the OP quickly paid the amount to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor after receiving the report of surveyor.  But, the learned counsel for the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.38,386/- from the OP as against that the OP has already paid an amount of Rs.31,037/- in view of survey report of Shri Anuj Khosla.  The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the copies of the bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7, which are issued by the local shopkeepers. Further it is not the case of the complainant that he got repaired the vehicle in question from the authorised dealer of the manufacturer of the vehicle.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the surveyor has rightly assessed the claim amount to the tune of Rs.31,037/-, which stands already paid to the complainant. There seems no reason to interfere with the report of the surveyor.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the survey report does not require any interference.   The learned counsel for the OP has also cited  H.C. Saxena versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another 2012(1) CPC 632 (NC), wherein it has been held that the report of the surveyor is an important document prepared under the legal provisions and should not be brushed aside without reasons.  Hence, in the present case, we find no reasons to ignore the survey report of the surveyor.  As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in the circumstances of the case.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 18, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member