Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/82/2015

Vinod Kumar S/o Laxmi Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co .Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Seema Sehgal

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                        Complaint Case No.82 of 2015.

                                                        Date of institution: 12.03.2015.

                                                        Date of decision: 24.11.2017.

 

Vinod Kumar, aged about 30 years son of Shri Laxmi Chand, resident of Village Bakala, Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                           

                                                                                               …Complainant.

                          Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. # 6330, 2^nd Floor, Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. Distt. Ambala, through its Branch Manager.
2. Dang Automobiles, Barara Road, near Sahni Carpets, Sadhaura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its authorized person. 

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Smt. Seema Sehgal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                 Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                 Sh. Devesh Bhardwaj, Adv. for Op No.2.

                

ORDER: (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

                 The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.              Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he got insured his motor-cycle make Bajaj Pulsar 150 bearing registration No.HR71-C/1633 with the Op No.1 vide policy No.88354433 for the period valid w.e.f. 12.07.2014 to 11.07.2015.  It is alleged that on 09.12.2014, the complainant driving the said motor-cycle coming to his village from Sadhaura met with an accident.  Information regarding accident was given to the Op, who appointed the surveyor and on the asking of surveyor, the complainant got repaired the said motor-cycle from Dang Automobiles-Op No.2 and spent Rs.18,141/- on the repair of said motor-cycle.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the repair bills and other documents but the Op No.1 only made the payment of Rs.7679/- to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs.10,462/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.7700/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statements separately.  Op No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that a sum of Rs.7679/- has already been paid to the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor; that on receiving the intimation regarding the alleged loss of vehicle in question, the answering Op immediately registered the claim and deputed Mr. M.L.Garg, surveyor for assessing the loss caused to the said vehicle and the said surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.7679/-.  As per the report of surveyor, who is duly licensed and a technical person, the claim of complainant was paid.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.              Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had brought his motor-cycle to the agency of Op No.2 for repair and they had repaired the motor-cycle in question and an amount of Rs.18,141/- was received from the complainant as repair charges.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.              Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

6.              On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavits as Annexure-R1/A & Annexure R1/B alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit, Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 & Annexure R2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.      

7.              We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

8.              From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant got insured  his motor-cycle in question with the Op No.1 vide policy No.88354433 for the period w.e.f. 12.07.2014 to 11.07.2015 and during the subsistence of the policy, the said motor-cycle met with an accident on 09.12.2014.  The dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, he got repaired the motor-cycle in question and incurred Rs.18,141/- and submitted the claim with the Op No.1 but the Op No.1 made payment of Rs.7679/- on 09.01.2015 instead of Rs.18,141/-.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law reported in 2016(1) CPR page 291 (NC) titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others Vs. Manjeet Kaur & another, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Insurance-Damage to car in accident-District Forum directed insurance company to pay sum of Rs.5,59,900/- to complainant after deducting 15% towards depreciation and cost of salvage alongwith 9% interest-Surveyor has arbitrarily assessed cost of parts as-well-as cost of labour without taking any estimate or quotation from market-Surveyor reduced cost of most of parts without even indicating on what basis he had made deduction-This renders assessment made by Surveyor wholly arbitrary and irrational-Fora below were right in taking view that insurance company was required to pay IDV of vehicle to complainant-Petitioner company directed to pay interest only from date of filing of complaint-Payment of Rs.2 lacs on account of death of driver shall also be made to complainant”.

                 On the other hand, the plea of Op No.1 is that on receiving the intimation regarding the alleged loss of vehicle in question, the Op No.1 immediately registered the claim and deputed Mr. M.L.Garg, surveyor for assessing the loss caused to the said vehicle and the said surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.7679/-, which was already paid to the complainant.  Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No.1 vehemently argued that the amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor has already been paid to the complainant and the report of the surveyor is the best piece of evidence in such cases as the surveyor is the best judge who assess and evaluate the loss/damage suffered by the vehicle and thus, the report of surveyor should not be discarded and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                 On perusal of the assessment made by the surveyor in his report Annexure R-2, we find that the surveyor has arbitrarily disallowed the claim regarding fuel tank only on the ground that it was old one, whereas as per bill of repair, Annexure C-2, it is crystal clear that the petrol tank with lock was replaced during the repair of motor-cycle in question and an amount of Rs.5950/- was charged by Op No.2 for the said parts.  This fact is also corroborated by the proprietor of Op No.2, whose affidavit Annexure R2/A is placed on the file, wherein he has admitted that the Op No.2 repaired the vehicle and according to the repair, spare and labour, the expenses incurred therein were to the tune of Rs.18,141/- as per bill/invoice dated 13.12.2014.  So, far as the other deductions are concerned, we found that the surveyor has rightly deducted the same as per terms and conditions of the policy.  On perusal of assessment details in the surveyor report, Annexure R-2, it is clear that the surveyor had made 10% depreciation on the metal parts.  It is clear from the policy that the motor-cycle in question was comprehensively insured by the Op No.1-insurance company.  The surveyor in his report disallowed the claim of the parts i.e. the petrol tank with lock arbitrarily with the observation that the same is old one, whereas the motor-cycle in question was comprehensively insured by the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- and as such, the surveyor has wrongly and without any valid justification and parameter disallowed the claim of the claim for a sum of Rs.5950/- and so, the complainant has been dragged into present litigation.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.5950/- after deduction of 10% depreciation on metal parts as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The authority submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of present case.      

9.              Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Op No.1 to pay Rs.5355/- (i.e.Rs.5950/- as cost of petrol tank and lock minus Rs.595/- as 10% depreciation) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from 09.01.2015 (the date when the assessed amount in the account of complainant was remitted through NEFT) till its realization and further to pay Rs.2200/- as lump sum compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.  The order be complied with within 45 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dated: 24.11.2017.

                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)        

MEMBER