Punjab

Sangrur

CC/538/2016

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Chatha

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  538

                                                Instituted on:    05.09.2016

                                                Decided on:       04.01.2017

 

Jaspal Singh son of Surjit Singh, House No.W-6/120, Ward No.6, Dhanaula, Distt. Barnala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. IFFCO Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon-122 001 (Haryana) through its M.D.

2.             Lalli Motors Pvt. Ltd. Village Bhindra, Opposite Golden Earth Global School, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its M.D.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Chatha, Adv.

For O.P. No.1          :       Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

For OP no.2              :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jaspal Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP number 1 by getting insured his Honda Amaze car bearing registration number PB-13-AG-0525 for the period from 08.08.2015 to 07.08.2016 under cashless and zero depreciation policy by paying the requisite premium.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 03.06.2016 when he was returning from Manali to Sangrur on the way near Dharamshala at about 6.00 PM when suddenly a stone fell down on the front side of the car and front glass and bonnet were damaged badly.  Further case of the complainant is that he intimated the OP number 1 immediately about the accident and advised the complainant to bring the vehicle at Lally Motors Pvt. Limited, Bhindran. It is further averred that the OP number 1 allotted claim number ITG/82161808/069009. The Op number 2 repaired the vehicle in question and received an amount of Rs.19,233/- vide invoice dated 16.6.2016 from the complainant, but the OP number 1 did not pay the claim amount despite submission of the documents. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.19,333/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP number 1 under the policy in question. It is further admitted that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 3.6.2016. However, it is stated that the complainant neither informed the OP on the day of accident nor got the spot survey of the vehicle in question conducted.  It is denied by the Op that the surveyor instructed the complainant to bring the vehicle at Lally Motors. Further it is denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.19,333/- on the repair of the car in question.  Further case of the Ops is that after receipt of the intimation, the surveyor Shri Naresh Kumar was appointed, who submitted his report dated 8.6.2016 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1600/-,  after deducting Rs.1000/- and further it is mentioned in the report that the damages to the car were old one, so the damages on the vehicle were pre existing and as such claim is not payable.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of driving license, Ex.C-3 copy of RC, Ex.C-4 copy of invoice dated 16.6.2016, Ex.C-5 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-6 postal receipt, Ex.C-7 copy of policy, Ex.C-8 reply of legal notice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP1/2 copy of claim form, Ex.Op1/3 copy of final report, Ex.OP1/4 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP1/5 affidavit, Ex.Op1/6 affidavit of Sanket Gupta and closed evidence.

 

4.             Record shows that the OP number 2 was proceeded exparte.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question with the OP number 1 for Rs.4,41,000/- for the period from 08.08.2015 to 07.08.2016 as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record as Ex.C-7 (Ex.OP1/1).   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 3.6.2016, intimation of which was given to the OP, as such after receipt of the intimation the OP number 1 immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report dated 08.06.2016, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1600/- only after deducting Rs.1000/-. 

 

7.             In the present case the complainant has alleged that the car in question suffered a loss of Rs.19,333/- as the car in question was got repaired from OP number 2 vide bill dated 16.6.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4, which clearly reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.19,333/- to OP number 1 in lieu of the repair of the car in question.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the surveyor has reported that the damages to the car in question were old one as such no claim is payable. No doubt, we have perused the copy of survey report Ex.OP1/3 wherein in the conclusion it has been mentioned that front windshield glass and bonnet are already damaged, but we are unable to go with such a contention of the surveyor as no sort of evidence has been produced on the file along with the said survey report to show that windshield glass and bonnet were already damages.  Further the Ops have not produced any photographs showing that the front windshield glass and bonnet were already damaged and even fresh photographs have not been produced on the record. As such, we are unable to throw the claim case on the basis of the said report of the surveyor. It is further worth mentioning here that we failed to understand how the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2600/- only, more so when the surveyor is duty bound that if he does not agree with the estimate given by the complainant, he should, unless go by the cost of the repair, if any, fixed by the manufacturer, obtain estimate of repairs from some other workshop and it is only the basis of such a quotation/estimate that he can reject the estimate obtained by the insured. Alternatively, he can make enquiry from some other workshops and note down the particulars of the workshop along with the charges quoted by it.  In such a case, the insurer should ask the insured to get the vehicle repaired at the workshop which has provided a lower estimate of repair to the surveyor. The assessment made by the surveyor becomes wholly arbitrary and cannot be accepted. The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Company Limited versus Rama Nanda 2016(2) CLT 139.  Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company limited versus Pradeep Kumar 2010(1) CPC 387 has held that the report of surveyor is not always last and final work for settlement of the claim nor it is binding on insurer or insured. In another case namely, National Insurance Company Limited versus Giriraj Proteins 2013(2) WBLR 958, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the report of surveyor is not the last and final work and it is not a conclusive proof. The report can be ignored if it is perverse or arbitrary, based on mere inferences or surmises and /or in suspicion. The acceptance of the report of surveyor cannot be made a rule of thumb.   In the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that the car in question was got repaired from the approved dealer of the manufacturer, who has issued Ex.C-4 showing that the OP number 1 charged an amount of Rs.19,333/- from the complainant for the repair of the said car in question.  In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,333/- on account of cost incurred by the complainant for the repair of the car in question.

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,333/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.09.2016 till realisation.  We further order the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 4, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member