DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

M/s Amar sons, SCO No. 847, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Sh. Sharanpal Singh.

---Complainant

Vs

1.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Zenith House, Keshvarao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400034.

2.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 24-25, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               PRESIDING MEMBER

                        Sh. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued By:    Ms. Sarbjit Kaur, Counsel for Complainant.

              Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant has filed the present complaint through its Prop. Sh. Sharanpal Singh. The Complainant had obtained a vehicle insurance policy for its Skoda Laura car bearing Regn. No. CH-04-5151, valid from 24.1.2010 to 23.1.2011 (Annexure C-2).

          On 6.7.2010, when the Prop., along with his family members was travelling in the car, it was raining very heavily. The car of the Complainant stopped in the middle of the road while going to the Railway Station. The car was surrounded by water on all sides as the water has accumulated on the road. When the rain stopped, the car was towed to the Service Station of Skoda i.e. M/s Krishna Auto Sales, Indl. Area, Chandigarh. The Complainant also informed the officials of the Opposite Parties, who deputed a Surveyor to assess the damage to the vehicle. In the meanwhile, the agency also handed over an estimate of the damaged parts of the vehicle to the Complainant (Annexure C-3 & C-4). The Complainant has stated that the Opposite Parties had assured him that when the vehicle would be repaired, the entire payment would be made. The Complainant was asked to make payment of the charges from his own pocket for the time being. Also as some damaged parts (Turbo Charger and Inter Cooler) were not available with the Agency, the Complainant had to get these parts fixed from outside the agency at the cost of Rs.1,25,000/-. The whole process of replacing the damaged parts and getting the car in running condition took about 45 days. The Complainant has stated that he spent a sum of Rs.2,76,255/- including Rs.1,25,000/- paid outside the agency for the parts fixed (Annexure C-5 to C-7). Thereafter, the Complainant submitted the bills to the Opposite Parties for making payments. However, the amount of claim has remained unpaid. The Complainant has thus filed the instant complaint, with a prayer for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,76,255/- along with interest, 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 filed joint reply. It has pleaded that the claim of the Complainant has already been passed for an amount of Rs.23,462/- in terms of the policy conditions and based on the report of the Surveyor. This amount has been recovered by the Complainant without objection towards full and final settlement of the claim. Relying on the settled law, the Opposite Parties have maintained that the report of the Surveyor being an important document has to be give due weightage and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

          In the para-wise reply, most of the contentions of the Complainant have been denied for want of knowledge. The issuance of the insurance has been admitted. In reply to Para 8 of the complaint wherein details of replacement of damaged parts i.e. Turbo Charger and Inter Cooler have been made, Opposite Parties have stated that no such parts have been mentioned in the bills nor has there been any replacement, they have also not been allowed by the Surveyor. Hence, the total amount claimed and spent by the Complainant has been denied. Opposite Parties have therefore prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.   

4.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and learned proxy counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

6.          During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties was asked to verify the details of payment of Rs.23,462/- made to the Complainant and its acceptance by the Complainant. However, no proof could be brought on record to substantiate the payment of the amount towards full and final settlement.

7.          The case of the Complainant relates to non-payment of Rs.2,76,255/- by the Opposite Parties against the bills raised in terms of the insurance policy issued. The Opposite Parties have categorically denied the bills for Turbo Charger and Inter Cooler. Also it has been stated that the amount has to be paid in terms of the surveyor’s report only.

8.          Annexure C-3 is an estimate dated 6.7.2010 given by M/s Krishna Auto Sales totaling Rs.2,89,051.25. Annexure C-4 is a supplementary estimate dated 3.8.2010 for Turbo Charger and Inter Cooler for Rs.1,13,540/-. The actual bill at Annexure C-5 from the said M/s Krishna Auto Sales show a net amount spent as Rs.1,02,371/-. The bills for Turbo Charger and Inter Cooler are not on record. Annexure D-2 is the Surveyor Report dated 1.8.2010 placed on record by the Opposite Parties. After examining the matter, the Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.23,469.36/-. This amount has been assessed after deductions.    

9.          In rebuttal evidence filed by the Complainant, the Complainant has not contested the surveyor’s report or pointed out the fallacies, if any, contained therein to contend that Complainant is entitled to the full amount claimed.

10.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777 has held:-

“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.”

          The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) has held: -

“….Surveyor’s report being important piece of evidence, to be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable.”

          In an another case Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that:-

“…….Surveyor’s report being important document cannot be easily brushed aside.”

11.        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, as already stated above, has not filed any specific written objections to the details in the surveyor’s report. Hence, for all purposes this report would be final and binding on the parties. Hence, in the given situation, we cannot find any reason to depart from the amount allowed to be payable according to the report.

12.        However, the contention of the Opposite Parties that the payment of Rs.23,462/- has already been paid to the Complainant as full and final settlement is also not accepted as no proof of payment is on record.

13.        We accordingly, allow the present complaint and give directions to the Opposite Parties to make payment of Rs.23,462/- to the Complainant. As this amount should have been paid by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time of Surveyor’s Report dated 1.8.2010. The Opposite Parties shall also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for delay in making payment and deficiency in service. Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation. 

14.        The above said order shall be complied by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which Opposite Parties will be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the decretal amount; from the date of this order, till it is paid, besides the costs of litigation.

15.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

16^th April, 2013.                                   

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU

MEMBER

 “Dutt”