Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 683.
Instituted on : 01.12.2017.
Decided on : 01.07.2019.
Rohtas age 23 years s/o Sh. Rajbir Singh r/o Village-Bahu Jamalpur, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Service c/o Hafed District Office, SCO No.19-20, Part-1, Sector-12, Karnal through its Area Manager.
- Managing Director, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon through the Managing Director.
- Sarav Haryana Gramin Bank Bahu Akbarpur, District Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.J.K.Nandal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Behl, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
Sh.M.K.Munjal Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant has availed a loan from the respondent No.3 for installing poly house and the complainant has got installed a poly house in his agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of village-Bahu Jamalpur, Distt. Rohtak. That the said poly house was duly insured with the respondent No.1 & 2 for all types of damages and losses through respondent no.3 as the respondent no.3 deducted the amount from the loan account of complainant for issuance of insurance. That due to natural calamities the said poly house was broken and was badly damaged. That complainant duly informed the officials of respondent about the damage of his poly house and the poly house was got surveyed by the surveyor of the respondent and thereafter with the permission of surveyor, the complainant got repaired his poly house and spent an amount of Rs.1100000/- over the repairing. That complainant applied for insurance claim to the respondent and completed all the required formalities. But the officials of the respondent have paid only an amount of Rs.406201/- to the complainant and did not pay the remaining amount. That complainant requested the opposite parties many times to pay the remaining amount but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.693799/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the surveyor had assessed the loss of poly House for Rs.406201/- as per the policy terms and conditions. The amount of compensation is calculated after taking into account of depreciation percentage on plastic/perishable material, metal portion etc. less salvage value, less previous claim amount which was not reinstated and applicable compulsory excess 5% (details mentioned in the Surveyor report). Company has paid the claim amount of Rs.406201/- as per the surveyor report in full and final settlement after taking the discharge voucher/satisfaction voucher from the insured. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has availed a loan facility of Rs.3740000/- for poly house on 26.06.2013 from the opposite party No.3. An amount of Rs.1519400/- as on 31.03.2018 is still outstanding in the said Loan account. That the contract of insurance is between the complainant and respondents No.1 & 2 and answering opposite party no.3 has nothing to do with the visit of the surveyor or payment of the insurance claim. That due to non-payment of loan amount in time by the complainant, the penal interest was imposed upon the complainant. That complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party No.3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/43 and closed his evidence on dated 05.11.2018.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per respondents, the complainant suffered loss in his poly house on 23.05.2016. The surveyor Sh. Ajay Mahajan was appointed to assess the loss in the poly house of the complainant. As per surveyor, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.406201/- after deducting excess clause and other terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent officials had already paid the assessed amount to the complainant on dated 07.11.2017. This amount was transferred in the complainant’s account lying with the Haryana Gramin bank. The respondent officials further submitted that the complainant had already issued the discharge voucher on dated 25.11.2017 after considering the loss and a full and final settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Discharge voucher Ex.R1 was voluntarily issued by the complainant.
7. As per complainant, respondents have not paid full and final amount assessed by the surveyor and they had already paid an amount of Rs.406201/- and he is entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.693799/- from the respondents. As per complainant, he spent an amount of Rs.1100000/-(approx.) for repairing the poly house. The complainant has placed on record some estimates or cash memos i.e. Ex.C4 in which the estimate cost of repair of poly house is shown as Rs.976999/-. The complainant also placed on record an estimate Ex.C5 & ExC6, as per which, the estimate cost of repair of poly house is shown as Rs.1312760/-. As per the surveyor report Ex.R2, prepared by Sh. Ajay Mahajan, surveyor and loss assessor, he has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.976999/- in the poly house of complainant. Meaning thereby, the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.976999/-i.e. Rs.977000/-(in round figure) for repair of his poly house. In this complaint, an amount of Rs.406201/- was paid by the insurance company to the complainant on dated 07.11.2017 and the present complaint was filed by the complainant on dated 01.12.2017. Meaning thereby, the discharge voucher was not voluntarily issued by the complainant. Moreover, perusal of Ex.R1 itself shows that the complainant has not signed on the revenue stamp, which itself shows that the discharge voucher was not voluntarily issued by the complainant.
8. The perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant and respondents itself shows that the deduction made by the respondent’s surveyor, at the time of assessing the loss could not be legally justified. As per report of surveyor, he has assessed the loss of Rs.976999.75 and he deducted an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of salvage value. He further deducted depreciation on metallic parts as Rs.141963.99. He assessed the cost of metallic parts as Rs.473213/-. He further deducted 75% on plastic/consumable/perishable material/abour portion as Rs.377839.88. He assessed the cost of plastic/consumable/perishable material/labour portion as Rs.503786.50. Meaning thereby the surveyor has deducted an amount of Rs.519803.87 as depreciation on metal portion, plastic/consumable/ perishable material/labour portion. Whereas, we have not found any clause in the policy that the surveyor can assess the loss after deducting the depreciation value as 30% on metal portion or 75% on plastic/consumable/perishable material/labour portion. On the other hand, in the depreciation clause no.7.2 of the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that : “The basis of value for declarations shall be the market value and any loss hereunder shall be settled on the basis of the market Value immediately anterior to the loss”.
9. After perusal of the clause of the policy, it has been specifically established that the loss can be assessed or settled on the basis of market value. The depreciation clause has not been mentioned anywhere in the policy. So, in our view, the amount of Rs.519803.87 deducted by the surveyor as depreciation on metal portion, plastic/consumable/ perishable /labour portion was wrongly calculated and the same is against the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, complainant is entitled for the alleged amount of Rs.519804/-(rounded off figure). In these circumstances, complaint is allowed and we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.519804/-(Rupees five lac nineteen thousand eight hundred and four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.12.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
