1.Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, Office: SCO No.232-234, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A,Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2.Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, Office:LotusTowers, 1^st Floor, Community Centre, New Friends Colony,New Delhi

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Jitin Bareja son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, r/o H.No.724, Sector 21, Panchkula.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed.  The same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under :-

i)      To pay the amount of Rs.6,49,000/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report dated 20.11.2012(R-3).

ii)     To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

iii)    To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.”

2.           infact 29.09.2012), the said car met with an accident, on Saha-Jagadhari Road, while the complainant was going to Saharanpur (U.P), to attend The said car was sent for repairs, to Pioneer Toyota workshop. Opposite Party No.1 was also intimated about the said accident. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1, appointed Sh.Parvinder Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, to assess the loss, caused to the vehicle, in question, in the said accident. The said Surveyor and Loss Assessor, prepared the estimate for repairs, which came to be Rs.12,60,000/-. It was stated that since, the estimate of repairs was more than the IDV, therefore, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, In this process, the car remained with the dealer for about 10-12 days. The complainant took the car, to his residence, after paying Rs.25,000/-.  It was further stated that, on 18.02.2013, the complainant received a letter from Opposite Party No.2, mentioning therein, that the insured vehicle was totally different than the one, shown at the time of pre-inspection, done on 28.08.2012.  When the claim of the complainant was not settled, legal notice dated 09.05.2013 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay Rs.9 lacs, being the Insured Declared Value, as the vehicle was declared as total loss, by the Surveyor, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the date of lodging the claim, till realization; compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment, including cost of litigation.

3.           

4.           

5.           6.            

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.        

11.         

12.        

13.        

                         The appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5.49 lacs, as clarified by the Surveyor, in his Addendum Report Annexure A-1, instead of Rs.6.49 lacs, as awarded by the District Forum, on the basis of report dated 20.11.2012 Annexure R-3.

                        The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, in its order impugned, shall remain intact.

14.        

15.        

Pronounced.

03/06/2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.)

Argued by:                  

Dated the 3^rd

ORDER

              Alongwith the appeal, an application for placing, on record, theAddendum Report dated 05.12.2012 Annexure A-1, submitted by Sh.Parvinder Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, to the appellants/Opposite Parties,by way of additional evidence, was filed by them (appellants/Opposite Parties).

2.                the Addendum Report dated 05.12.2012, of Sh.Parvinder Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, sought to be placed, on record, by way of additional evidence, it was revealed that he assessed the loss, in his report dated 20.11.2012,  It was further stated that theAddendum Report dated 05.12.2012, Annexure A-1, is

3.                   In reply to the application, it was stated by the respondent, that there was no clerical/mathematical mistake, in the report of the Surveyor Annexure R-3. It was further stated that, infact, there was a possibility that the said Surveyor and Loss Assessor, had an intention to give the claim of Rs.6.50 lacs, to the complainant, and, inadvertently, mentioned the salvage value of Rs.3.50 lacs, instead of Rs.2.50 lacs. 

4.                    It may be stated here, that, nodoubt, theAddendum Report dated 05.12.2012 Annexure A-1, submitted by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor,was very much in possession of the Opposite Parties/appellants, yet they did not produce the same, in the District Forum. In our considered opinion, the same (Addendum Report dated 05.12.2012 Annexure A-1)is essential for the just decision of appeal, as from the same, it was proved that it was only due to the clerical/mathematical mistake, on the part ofSurveyor, Addendum Report dated 05.12.2012 Annexure A-1, is not only essential for the just decision ofAddendum Report dated 05.12.2012 Annexure A-1, on record. The Addendum Report has been placed on record, and admitted into evidence.

5.                

6.                    Arguments in the appeal, have already been heard.

7.                    Vide separate detailed order, this appealhas been partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with the modification.

8.                

Sd/-              

Rg.