1.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 24-25, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

2.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate Office, Old Tata Press Building, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – through its Vice President.

3.   Mr.Harjit Singh, Repairer, Booth No.31, Sector    32-C, Chandigarh.

- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

           Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The Complainant was the owner of a brand new Volkswagen Jetta car, bearing Temp. Regn. No.CH-48-(T)-2366, insured with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, valid from 5.10.2011 to 4.10.2012, for an IDV of Rs.14,81,430/- (Insurance Policy Annexure C-5). The vehicle met with an accident on 24.12.2011. Due intimation was given to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Repair on the vehicle was also conducted by Opposite Party No.3. While repairs were being conducted by Opposite Party No.3, the car was destroyed by fire by some miscreants and was declared as a total loss. An FIR was lodged by Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure C-7). The matter was even reported in the press. Though the matter was reported to the Chief Fire Officer, the cause of fir as per spot assessment could not be ascertained. Intimation was also given to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, who appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Complainant was made to understand that the Surveyor had assessed to the loss to the tune of Rs.9,55,000/- while Rs.1,45,000/- was assessed as salvage value. The assessed amount was sent to the Complainant through Cheque. The Complainant thus represented with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 that as the vehicle was a brand new one with IDV of Rs.14,81,430/-, the Opposite Parties should have released the balance amount of Rs.3,81,430/- (Rs.14,81,430/- less Rs.11,00,000/-).

          As the balance amount of Rs.3,81,430/- has not been released, the Complainant has filed the present complaint, praying that the Opposite Parties be directed to release the amount, along with compensation and costs of litigation.    

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that cheque of full and final settlement sent to the Complainant for Rs.9.55 lacs was duly encashed by her. The Complainant also signed the discharge voucher towards full and final settlement. Hence, as per settled law, no further amount is payable to the Complainant. The salvage valued at Rs.1.45 lacs was to be sold by the Complainant herself. As the vehicle was under hypothecation, the amount of Rs.9.55 lacs was required to be paid to the Financier which had been done. Also, the Complainant has herself stated that the amount was settled as per Surveyor’s report. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.          Opposite Party No.3 in reply has stated that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against it, as he is only the repairer of the vehicle and the claim for the vehicle has to be paid by the Complainant herself. Also, Opposite Party No.3 has done the work of denting and painting only, while the rest of the repairs were done outside the workshop of Opposite Party No.3. Hence, denying the allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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.          Before going into the merits of the case, we need to peruse Annexure R-1 and R-2 placed on record by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, which are duly signed Discharge Voucher and letter of confirmation of sale of salvage by the Complainant, evidencing that she had agreed to the full and final assessment of the vehicle towards the claim lodged with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for an amount of Rs.11.00 lacs (Rs.9.55 lacs + Rs.1.45 lacs). 

8.          It is the case of the Complainant that she has been paid an amount of Rs.9.55 lacs which was far less than the IDV of the vehicle being Rs.14,81,430/-, even though it was a brand new vehicle and was declared as a total loss.

9.          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 fairly conceded that cheque of full and final settlement sent to the Complainant for Rs.9.55 lacs was duly encashed by her. The Complainant also signed the discharge voucher towards full and final settlement.

10.        It needs to mention here that even though the Surveyor’s report is not on record, the Complainant has herself stated that the amount assessed by the Surveyor was Rs.9.55 lacs.

11.        The Complainant has not challenged the surveyor’s reports to state that the surveyor has assessed the claim wrongly or inadequately. To our mind, Surveyor’s report being important piece of evidence, should be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable.

12.        Here we are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777, wherein it has been held as under:-

“Insurance Act, 1938 – S.64-UM – Surveyor/ Loss assessor’s report – Weightage to be given – Held, though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report – No infirmity found in Surveyor’s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.”

13.        It is thus clear that the Surveyor’s report is final, unless challenged by either the Complainant or the Opposite Party with specific contentions and averments. The Complainant, in the present case, has not contested the Surveyor’s reports. Hence, the complaint needs to be dismissed, as the Opposite Parties have made payment to the Complainant as per the surveyor’s report.

14.        The Complainant has been paid the amount as per the assessment made by the Surveyor and has also signed the discharge voucher placed on record by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. No protest has been lodged by the Complainant at the time of signing the said discharge voucher which is dated 17.10.2012. However, at a later date, vide letter dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure C-17), the Complainant has lodged her protest with the Opposite Parties for release of the balance amount of Rs.3,81,430/- (Rs.14,81,430/- less Rs.11,00,000/-). It is settled proposition of law that unless the amount has been accepted under protest at the time of receiving the claim, no further issue on the same can be raised by the Complainant. Since the Complainant has already encashed the cheque sent by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to our mind, no further amount is payable.

15.        In the light of the above ruling and facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. No costs.

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

Announced

29^th October, 2013                         

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                             PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

“Dutt”                                                                                    MEMBER