Haryana

Karnal

CC/4/2022

Phool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanheev Manglora

29 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 04 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.05.01.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:29.09.2023

 

Deepak son of late Shri Phool Singh, resident of village Jattal, District Panipat, aadhar no.4909 3908 4825.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Hafed Building, Sector-12, Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

Argued by:  Shri Sanjeev Manglora, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Goyal, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that father of complainant (since deceased) was the registered owner of tractor bearing no.HR-06-AN-548, Model 2017. The said vehicle was got insured with the OP no.1, vide policy no.1-JYB54HF, valid from 31.10.2020 to 30.10.2021. The insured declared value of the tractor is Rs.4,50,000/- as per the policy. The policy was package/comprehensive. The tractor was purchased by the father of complainant for agriculture purpose and for earning his livelihood. On 30.10.2020, the complainant alongwith his driver Abid were coming from Anaj Mandi Matloda (Panipat) after unloadidng the paddy from the said tractor-trolley to their fields Partapgarh (KKR). At about 10.30/11 p.m. when they reached near Padhana over bridge near Gaushala Takhana, in the meantime a truck (Trolla) bearing no.PB-10-GW-9933 came from Karnal side in rash, careless and negligent manner and hit the tractor-trolly from behind and caused this accident, due to which the tractor-trolley was damaged extensively. After the accident, the matter was reported to the Local Police with Police Station Taraori (Karnal) and police lodged the FIR no.390 dated 31.10.2020, under section 279/304-A IPC. In the said accident, the driver of the tractor-trolley was died. The local police visited at the spot and inspected/investigated the matter and the tractor-trolley remained stationed there and the police official with the help of crane the said tractor-trolley got stood on the side of the road as it was not in a position to move. On 1.11.2020, complainant visited the spot and he saw that two tyres alongwith RIMS are missing and in this regard an another FIR was lodged with the local police of Police Station Taraori, vide FIR no.397 dated 01.11.2020 under section 379 IPC. Thereafter, complainant intimated the OP no.1 regarding the aforesaid incident. The surveyor of the company visited the spot and photographs were taken and completed all the formalities in this regard.

2.             It is further alleged that the said tractor was taken on spurdari from the court and complainant took the said tractor to M/s Vishwakarma Automobiles, Ladwa Road, Pipli (KKR). The complainant intimated the OP and the officials of the OP assured the complainant to get it repair and the amount of the repair bills will be made very soon. The complainant paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the owner of workshop and Rs.40,000/- for purchasing of new tyres and rims and the original bills were submitted to the office of OP and requested for the payment of the aforesaid bills. But OP did not pay the said amount and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay the OD claim i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- of the tractor in question alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, harassment etc.

3.             On notice,  OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on receipt of intimation regarding the accident of the insured vehicle of complainant on 30.10.2020, OP appointed its IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss to the damaged vehicle. The said surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and assessed the liability of the insurance company and submitted report to the insurance company. As per the insurance policy conditions, the surveyor assessed the said loss to the tune of Rs.65,086/- after deduction of cost of depreciation on the part replaced @ 50% of plastic parts and @ 15% on metal parts, deduction of policy excess clause (5% of IDV), salvage cost and cost of consumables (such as Nut and Bolt, screw grease, lubricant, engine oil) which are not covered under a standard motor insurance policy. The surveyor in his report mistakenly deducted the compulsory excess Rs.2000/- in place of Rs.2375/- (.5% of IDV). The insurance company after correctly applying excess clause approved the claim for an amount of Rs.64711/- and the said amount was duly paid to the complainant bank account on 27.09.2021. But the complainant deliberately concealed the said fact from his Hon’ble Commission to get undue relief from this Commission. There is no grievance or any kind of dispute raised by the complainant in his complaint regarding assessment made by the surveyor. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of FIR no.397/20 Ex.C1, copy of FIR no.390/20 Ex.C2, copy of bills/invoices Ex.C3 to Ex.C8, copy of pass book Ex.C9, copy of RC Ex.C10, copy of insurance policy Ex.C11, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C12, copy of spurdari order dated 31.10.2020 Ex.C13, copy of driving licence of Abid Ex.C14, copy of repair bill dated 09.11.2020 Ex.C15, copy of bill issued by Gupta Tyre Ex.C16, copy of estimate of repair dated 10.11.2020 Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 01.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Hardeep Singh Kaundal, Deputy General Manager Ex.RW1/A,        affidavit of Bharat Bhushan, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.RW2/A, copy of survey report Ex.R1, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 16.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant (since deceased) got insured his tractor with the OP for a sum insured of Rs.4,50,000/-. On 30.10.2020, the said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Anaj Mandi Matloda (Panipat). In the said accident, the driver of the vehicle was died and insured vehicle was also badly damaged. The complainant spent Rs.2,50,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. The intimation was sent to OP and requested to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant has already been settled by the OP and an amount of Rs.64711/- had already been disbursed to the account of complainant through NEFT on 27.09.2021 and this fact has concealed by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.              Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that intimation regarding the accident was given to OP and complainant also lodged the claim with the OP.

12.           As per the survey report Ex.R1 dated 06.01.2021, the loss has been assessed by the surveyor of the OP to the tune of Rs.64711/- but complainant has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as a cost of the repair of the vehicle. The complainant has relied upon the bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 but the said bills are not readable and issued by the local mechanic and not any authorized mechanic. Hence, the said bills are no values in the eyes of law. Hence, the report of the surveyor will prevail. In this regard we are relying upon the case law titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya 2(2008) CPJ paged 182 (NC), wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of this authority as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs are liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor

13.           The amount of Rs.64,711/- has already been paid to the complainant. This fact is evident from the bank passbook of complainant Ex.C9 that on 27.09.2021, but this fact has been concealed by the complainant in his complaint. Complainant has not raised any objection regarding the assessment made by the surveyor of the OP.

14.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.09.2023

                                                                President,                  

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

Member                         Member