BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 179 of 2014
Date of Institution : 19.12.2014
Date of Decision : 29.11.2016.
Avtar Singh son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh, resident of village Moriwala, now resident of Khairpur, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Iffco House, 3rd Floor, 34, Nehru Palance, New Delhi- 110019 through its General Manager.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Sheetal Complex Ground Floor, Rajbaha Road, Patiala (Pb) through its Manager.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Surjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjay Sihag, Adv. for Sh.H.S.Raghav, Adv. for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that his vehicle i.e. truck tralla 2515 bearing registration No.HR-56-B/4213 was insured at Sirsa through agent with opposite parties vide policy No.83912402 with effect from 11.5.2013 to 10.5.2014. On 3.11.2013, the above said vehicle of complainant got damaged at Hisar road, Sirsa as it fell down from the road in order to save another vehicle and became turtle. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.4,01,500/- and in this regard opposite parties were informed and he submitted repair bills of Rs.4,01,500/- alongwith necessary documents to the ops. Out of the above said amount, ops had issued a cheque of Rs.84,000/- after surveyor report with the assurance of payment of balance amount within some days to him and same was duly received by him, but ops have not paid the remaining amount to him till today despite his several visits and requests and they are putting off the mater on one pretext or the other. The complainant is dependent upon the income of his above said vehicle and he is unable to bear the above said loss. The complainant got served legal notice dated 17.7.2014 upon ops and same was duly received by ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and replied that as per surveyor report, the ops have already paid the amount of the loss after necessary deduction, as per law. Mr. Ravi Aggarwal, Surveyor was appointed by the ops, who inspected the vehicle on 4.11.2013 and as per surveyor report, the ops have paid all amount of loss and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. In evidence, complainant has tendered affidavit of Sh. Nirmal Singh proprietor of New Dashmesh Body Repairing Works Ex.C1/A, affidavit of Sh. Taranjeet Singh, proprietor of Taran Auto Electric Ex.C1/B, affidavit of Sh.Amit Kumar prop. of Bharat Motors spare parts shop Ex.C1/C, affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep prop. of Bikaner Auto Mobile Ex.C1/D, affidavit of Sh. Partap Singh, prop. of Gurunanak Engineering & Repairing Works Ex.C2/A, his own affidavit Ex.C3/A, copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C6, legal notice Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C8 and copy of bill Ex.C9. On the other hand, opposite parties have tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanket Gupta Ex.R1, scrutiny sheet including motor final survey report Ex.R2.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties from 11.5.2013 to 10.5.2014. There is also no dispute that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 3.11.2013 i.e. during the period of insurance. The complainant has claimed amount of Rs.4,01,500/- on account of repairs of his above said insured vehicle i.e. Truck Tralla due to accident and has produced on file affidavits of proprietors of above said workshops and copies of bills for repair of his vehicle, whereas Surveyor in his report Ex.R2 has assessed that total amount payable is Rs.1,26637/- but then in the said report Ex.R2 which is computerized, cuttings and additions by pen have been made by hand and the amount payable has been shown as Rs.84,200/- after making deduction of Rs.12663/- as 10% tax, Rs.9774/- as tax on local bill and deduction of Rs.20,000/- being labour charges on higher side but there is no justification in deduction of that total amount of Rs.42,437/- from the amount of Rs.1,26,637/- after making cuttings and additions in the said report because the Surveyor has already made deduction of the amounts of new parts on the basis of depreciation and in this way total deduction of the amount of Rs.47637/- from the amount of Rs.1,74,274/- (Rs.84,274/- as costs of spare parts + Rs.90,000/- as labour charges) was already made in the said report after all permissible deductions. He had reported that total amount payable is Rs.1,26,637/- after all the permissible deductions and therefore, deduction of another huge amount of Rs.42,437/- after making cuttings and additions through pen in the report is not justified. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that Surveyor himself made cuttings and additions in his report. Further, ops no where justified the deductions of Rs.42,437/- in their written version or through their evidence. So the, over additions made in the computerized report through pen is to be ignored.
6. The amount claimed by the complainant as Rs.4,01,500/- is also on very much higher side because the vehicle in question is of the model of 2001 and replacement of all parts with new one when some parts are repairable cannot be allowed. In this regard, Surveyor has mentioned that insured has replaced the cabin and load body accessory with disposal one rather than repair of the damaged one, but he has allowed repair of both according to damages. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file original vouchers and receipts of the bills. In our view the amount of Rs.1,26,637/- assessed by the Surveyor was just and proper amount to be paid to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that report of Surveyor is not a final document and is not always conclusive one and is not binding upon the complainant and he has relied upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar, Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002 decided on 9.4.2009 but the said authority is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in that case award of amount of Rs.1,58409/- was justified with original voucher, bills and receipts but in the present case first of all, the model of the vehicle is of year 2001 and amount of Rs.4,01,500/- claimed by complainant is on very much higher side specially when total cost of the vehicle at the time of insurance was declared as Rs.4,90,000/-. The opposite parties have already made payment of Rs.84,000/- to the complainant and in our view he is entitled to remaining amount of Rs.42,637/- (Rs.1,26,637/- minus Rs.84,000/- = Rs.42,637/-) from the opposite parties according to the surveyor report.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make payment of Rs.42,637/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.12.2014 till actual payment to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 29.11.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
