Haryana

Karnal

434/2012

Ajit Kajal S/o Ranbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco -Tokio General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.S. Mandhan

04 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.434 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.: 11.09.2012

                                                                Date of decision:04.05.2016

 

Ajit Kajal son of Sh. Ranbir Singh resident of village Raipur Jattan, tehsil & Distt. Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd: Iffco Sadan CI Distt. Centrte, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. Sohan Singh Complex Shastri Nagar Ludhiana (Pb.)-141002.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-         Sh. Jagmal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. A.K. Vohra Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                  

 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 truck bearing registration no.HR-45-A-6910 from opposite party no.2 and insurance policy bearing no.1-z-2D8EB P400 valid from 10.12.2011 to 9.12.2012 was issued by opposite party no.2. On 2.1.2012 after loading Turi in his truck, he proceeded from Karnal to Gaziabad. When the truck reached near Gaziabad at about 4.00 a.m. on 4.1.2012, the same turned turtle, while avoiding accident with another vehicle. He gave information about the accident to the opposite parties on toll free number. The opposite parties appointed surveyor who reached the spot, made physical verification of the truck and completed all the formalities. On instructions of the surveyor, the truck was initially shifted to Sahibabad with the help of crane and lateron to the work shop of Sabir Body maker Muradabad. Thereafter, as per instructions of the surveyor, he got repaired the truck and spent an amount of Rs.4,23,310/-. He lodged claim with the opposite parties and submitted all the relevant documents. Initially, the opposite parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other, but finally refused to settle the claim. He also got served a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Thus, there was clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, which caused to him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is grossly misconceived and misdirected and that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harass the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the claim of the complainant was approved as per the report of the surveyor and demand draft no.482730, dated 11.07.2012 for Rs.51,250/- was issued in his favour as full and final payment of the claim. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C19 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Pallavi Joshi Ex.O1, affidavit of Engineer Amit Kumar Poothia Surveyor Ex.O2 and document Ex.O3 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 truck of the complainant was insured by the opposite parties for the period of 10.12.2011 to 9.12.2012. The said truck met with an accident on the intervening night of 3/4.1.2012 and was damaged in the said accident. The opposite parties appointed surveyor who assessed the loss and an amount of Rs.51,250/- was paid to the complainant. As per the case of the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.4,23,310/- on repair of his truck but the opposite parties paid an amount of Rs.51,250/- only as assessed by the surveyor whereas the balance amount was not paid despite the fact that he had submitted the original bills regarding repairs.

7.                Thus, the complainant has disputed the report of surveyor regarding assessment of the loss/damage. The report of the surveyor Mr. Amit Kumar Poothia is Ex.O3 according to which he assessed the total amount payable as loss/damage as Rs.51,165/-. He also filed the affidavit Ex.O2 in support of his report. The complainant has produced the copies of bills Ex.C13 to Ex.C15 regarding purchase of the spare parts, copy of the estimate for repairs prepared by Sabair Body Maker Ex.C16, copy of the receipt regarding payment of Rs.3,21,250/- to Sabir body maker Ex.C17, copy of receipt regarding payment of Rs.7200/-for repair of dash board, denting, welding etc.  Ex.C18 and copy of the receipt of labour charges of Rs.17,250/- for repair of the chasis frame by Hasrudeen Ex.C19. Apart from that he has also produced the copies of bills Ex.C11 and Ex.C12 regarding payment of Rs.11,000/- for shifting the truck from Gaziabad to Sahibabad and then to Muradabad with the help of crane. The material question which arises for consideration is as to what is the evidentiary value of the report of surveyor appointed by the insurance company. 

8.                In D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 CPJ 272 (NC) it was held by  Hon’ble National Commission that surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Others 2000(10) SCC 19 it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice. In Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2009 (8) SCC-507 it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no disputing fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by Insurance Company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them.

9.                Thus, the proposition of law, in view of the afore cited authorities emerges that surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise. If, the report is not considered that would result in serious mis-carriage of justice. There should be sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by the surveyor. In the present case, the surveyor has filed his affidavit also in support of his report. Complainant did not get the loss assessed from some authorized surveyor, which could rebut report of surveyor appointed by the opposite parties. No affidavit of any person, who issued bills Ex.C13 to Ex.C15, estimate Ex.C16 and receipts Ex.C17 to Ex.C19 has been produced by the complainant to prove the genuineness of the copies of the bills and receipts. The bald affidavit of the complainant, without any corroborative and cogent evidence, is not sufficient to prove that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.4,23,310/- for repairs of his truck. Such bills and receipts could be procured one, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon them and the same are not sufficient to rebut the report of the surveyor. The opposite parties have already paid Rs.51,250/- as per the surveyor report, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member