DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.447 of 2014
Date of institution: 25.06.2014
31.03.2016
Date of decision : 12.12.2017
Parminder Singh Saini, Maple Leaf Complex, Sector 115, Khuni Majra Road, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019.
2. Protech Engineers,SCF No.40, Phase-9, Mohali 160 062.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri G.D. Gupta, counsel for OP No.1
OP No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
This complaint was earlier decided by this Forum vide order dated 04.02.2015. Against the order of this Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 23.02.2016 remanded back the complaint with the direction to afford an opportunity to the complainant to tender affidavit of surveyor Kailash Chandra, who had assessed the loss of the insured vehicle as Rs.5,98,000/- and then opportunity be given to the OPs to tender additional evidence or to cross examine the witness, if so required by the parties. Accordingly, in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, the parties appeared before this Forum on 31.03.2016 and on that date itself the complainant submitted the affidavit of Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and the case was adjourned to 21.04.2016 for tendering in evidence another affidavit of the surveyor. The surveyor Kailash Chandra submitted his affidavit on 21.04.2016 and both the parties were given opportunities to file objections to the report of Kailash Chandra Surveyor. OP No.1 submitted objections to the affidavit of Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and sought adjournment for submission of interrogatories but OP No.1 failed to file interrogatories for the surveyor of the complainant namely Kailash Chandra. Learned counsel for OP No.1 stated on 01.09.2016 that already filed affidavit of Pukhraj Singh, Surveyor be treated as rebuttal to the affidavit of Kailash Chander.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got renewed insurance of his Skoda Laura from Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 on 03.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The car of the complainant met with an accident in Phase-7, Mohali on 17.01.2013. The complainant informed about the accident to OP No.1 who asked the complainant to get estimate report from authorized dealer of the car. As per the estimate report of the authorized dealer the damage to the car was estimated to tune of Rs.9,83,000/-. The complainant had spent Rs.10,000/- for getting this estimate report. The OP No.1 deputed OP No.2 to assess the loss. In order to make payment to the complainant OP No.2 tried to sell the vehicle but could not succeed. Hence the payment could not be made to the complainant. However, the loss assessed by OP No.2 was for Rs.6,62,000/- by cutting down the estimated loss on speculations. The request of the complainant for appointment of independent surveyor was not honoured by the OP No.1. The complainant did not agree to the offer of the OPs to pay Rs.3,00,000/- from his own pocket towards repair of the vehicle. The OPs also failed to pay him Rs.6,00,000/- which was the IDV of the vehicle. With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.6,00,000/-; to pay him Rs.1,80,000/- on account of interest on Rs.6,00,000/- for 18 months; Rs.10,000/- for taxi charges for one month; Rs.10,000/- for getting prepared the estimate; Rs.1,35,000/- for car parking @ Rs.250/- per day for 18 months and Rs.65,000/- as litigation costs.
3. OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that there is abnormal delay in reporting the claim to OP No.1 as the accident took place on 17.01.2013 and the intimation was given to it on 21.01.2013. The claim form was submitted on 24.01.2013. As per terms of the policy in case of accident immediate written intimation must be sent to the insurance company. OP No.2 who is independent IRDA accredited surveyor was deputed to assess the loss who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,62,000/- vide his report dated 26.09.2013. The surveyor discussed the loss with the repairer and the complainant and asked them to get the vehicle repaired but the complainant insisted that the vehicle may be declared as total loss whereas the car was in repairable condition. The OP No.1 vide letters dated 01.10.2013, 20.12.2013, 14.02.2013 and 15.04.2014 asked the complainant to get repaired the vehicle but he did not respond. Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter No.15.04.2014 Ex.OP-6 after giving lot of opportunities to the complainant. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. None appeared for OP No.2 despite service. Presuming its absence as willful, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte on 01.08.2014.
5. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-6 and affidavit of Kailash Chandra Ex.CW-2/1 and affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Ex.CW-3/1.
6. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavits of Ms. Pallavi Roy its Vice President Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-7
7. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP No.1 and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
8. Admittedly the vehicle in question is insured and insurance policy was in currency at the time of accident. The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs on account of non submissions of documents whereas as per the complainant, it was a case of total loss of the vehicle whereas the OPs have offered him the settlement of claim as per surveyor report loss having been assessed being less than 75% of the IDV of the vehicle in question. Since he was disputing the veracity of the surveyor report and was constantly in touch with the OPs through various communications, awaiting clarification he has not submitted the documents and his case has been wrongly closed. Regarding Ex.C-6, the complainant has submitted a detailed assessment got carried out by him from his independent source by one Shri Kailesh Chandra Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide which the Surveyor and Loss Assessor has come to the conclusion that the net payable amount is Rs.5,98,000/-. Admittedly the detailed assessment Ex.C-6 has been tendered by the complainant in his evidence to show that against the IDV of Rs.6.00 lacs of the vehicle in question the total loss as per this assessment Rs.5,98,000/- and Shri Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor i.e. author of this report has submitted his affidavit in support of his report, after the case was remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission. Despite availing ample opportunities, the counsel for OP No.1 failed to cross examine Shri Kailash Chandra, Surveyor of the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 has simply stated that the affidavit of Shri Pukhraj Singh the surveyor appointed by OP No.1 may be read as counter to the affidavit of Shri Kailash Chandra. We have perused the affidavit Ex.OP-7 submitted by Shri Pukhraj Singh wherein he has stated nothing regarding the report submitted by Shri Kailash Chandra Surveyor. Shri Pukhraj Singh in his affidavit has simply deposed about the survey report submitted by him. Further we have made comparison of both the surveyor reports submitted by Shri Pukhraj Singh and Shri Kailash Chandra. Shri Kailash Chandra in his report Ex.C-6 has shown in Bold letters the parts which were not considered by Shri Pukhraj Singh in his report. Shri Kailash Chandra in his affidavit has stated that he is licensed surveyor. Thus, the report of Shri Kailash Chandra, Surveyor of the complainant is accepted and that of the report of Shri Pukhraj Singh, surveyor of the OP is rejected. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to Rs.5,98,000/- from OP No.1 being total loss to his vehicle in view of the report Ex.C-6 of Shri Kailash Chandra Surveyor. The complainant has not produced any document to prove the payment of taxi charges. Hence he is not entitled to get any amount on account of hiring of taxi. However, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- which he has paid to Krishna Autos for getting prepared the estimate which is Ex.C-3. The complainant is not entitled to any amount on account of parking charges of his vehicle as no evidence has been led by complainant to prove payment of parking charges.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct OP No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.5,98,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) on account of total damage of his car, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 25.06.2014 till actual payment. The OP No.1 should also pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) alongwith 12% interest per annum w.e.f. 11.03.2013 (the date of payment to Krishna Autos for getting prepared the estimate). We also find that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for costs of litigation.
OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 12.12.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
